i7i 


Issued April 2, 1908. 



I 


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 

OFFICE OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS—BULLETIN 198. 

A. C. TRUE, Director. 


the prevention of injury by floods 

IN THE NEOSHO VALLEY, KANSAS. 


BY 

J. O. WRIGHT, 

Supervising Drainage Engineer. 


PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF 


C. G. ELLIOTT, 


Chief of Dm hinge Jnvestigations. 



WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT P HINTING OFFICE. 

19 08 . 


Ifatcgiapn 

4/ 










4 * 







% 






























* 































































* 
























1071 


Issued April 2, 1908. 

V- s - DEPARTMENT of agriculture. 

OFFICE OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS—BULLETIN 198. 

A. C. TRUE, Director. 


THE PREVENTION OF INJURY BY FLOODS 
IN THE NEOSHO VALLEY, KANSAS. 


/. ,* Y 

J0-" O. WRIGHT, 

u 

Supervising Drainage Engineer. 


PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF 

C. G. ELLIOTT, 

Chief of Drainage Investigations. 



WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 


1908. f 






OFFICE OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS. 


A. C. True, Ph. D., Director. 

E. W. Allen, Ph. D., Assistant Director. 


DRAINAGE INVESTIGATIONS. 


STAFF. 


C. G. Elliott, Chief Drainage Engineer and Chief of Drainage Investigations. 

Supervising Drainage Engineers. —J. O. Wright, S. M. Woodward, A. E. Morgan, 
W. J. McEathron. 

Drainage Engineers .—J. T. Stewart, C. F. Brown, H. A. Kipp, Lawrence Brett, L. L. 
Hidinger, S. H. McCrory. 

Assistant Drainage Engineers. —D. G. Miller, F. F. Shafer, Omer Fairley, W. W. Weir, 
0. G. Baxter, W. M. Lynde. 

[Bull. 198] (2) 


APR 25 1908 

D. or 0. 



. 


v \ 



LETTER OE TRANSMITTAL. 


CrC 


U. S. Department of Agriculture, 

Office of Experiment Stations, 
Washington, D. C., January 25, 1908. 

Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith a manuscript entitled 
“The Prevention of Injury by Floods in the Neosho Valley, Kansas,” 
prepared under the direction of C. G. Elliott, Chief of Drainage Inves¬ 
tigations of this Office. The manuscript is based upon the results of 
a held investigation carried out under the direction of J. O. Wright, 
supervising drainage engineer of this Office, in response to an urgent 
demand for information as to the best plan of protection to be adopted 
by the residents of the valley to prevent the recurrence of such 
extensive damage at times of high water as has resulted from floods 
in past years. 

The question of methods best adapted to secure adequate pro¬ 
tection from injury by floods along the interior rivers of this country 
has become one of vast importance in recent years, with the high 
values attained for our agricultural lands and the resulting tendency 
to make use of every portion of available area. The resources of this 
Office have been taxed by the numerous requests received asking for 
assistance in furnishing information and advice on the subject of flood 
protection. The accompanying manuscript describes the existing 
situation in the Neosho Valley, and outlines in detail a feasible plan 
for protective relief, based upon the extensive field surveys made for 
the purpose. While relating especially to the Neosho Valley, the 
discussion deals broadly with the whole question, explaining in an 
elementary way the general fundamental principles involved and 
the methods that must be followed in the solution of similar problems 
elsewhere. Hence the discussion is of general use and applicability 
wherever this question is an important one. Its publication as a 
bulletin of this Office is therefore recommended. 

Very respectfully, 

f A. C. True, Director . 


Hon. James Wilson, 

Secretary of Agriculture. 


( 3 ) 


[Bull. 198] 



































































































































I» 




■ 



















' 
































* **4 









































































































CONTENTS. 


Introduction. 

The Neosho Valley. 

General description. 

Condition of river channel. 

Floods in the Neosho Valley.. 

Early floods. .. 

Floods of 1903 and 1904. 

Extent of injury from floods. 

Previous attempts at flood protection. 

Objects of the investigation and survey. 

Description of survey. 

Results of survey. 1 . 

Profile data. 

Bench-marks. 

Carrying capacity of channels. 

Run-off and rainfall. 

Possible improvements to a channel. 

Protection by levees. 

The plan recommended. 

General specifications for building the levees 
Other necessary improvements.. 

Cost of improvements. 

Detailed maps and estimates.... 

Chetopa sheet. 

Oswego sheet. 

Island sheet. 

St. Paul sheet. 

Erie sheet. 

Chanute sheet. 

Humboldt sheet. 

Iola sheet. 

Neosho Falls sheet. 

Burlington sheet.. 

Strawn sheet. 

Hartford sheet. 

Emporia sheet. 

Summary of total estimated costs 

Review and conclusions.... 

[Bull. 198.] 


Page. 

7 


9 

11 

11 

12 

12 

13 

14 

14 

15 
15 

17 

18 
19 
22 
23 
23 

25 

26 
28 

29 

30 

31 


32 

33 

34 

35 


35 

36 

37 

37 

38 

38 

39 

41 

42 


(5) 









































ILLUSTRATIONS. 


PLATES. 

Plate I. Map of the Neosho Valley, Kansas. 

II. Chetopa sheet. 

III. Oswego sheet.... 

IV. Island sheet.. 

V. St. Paul sheet. 

VI. Erie sheet. 

VII. Chanute sheet. 

VIII. Humboldt sheet.... 

IX. Iola sheet. 

X. Neosho Falls sheet.. 

XI. Burlington sheet.. 

XII. Strawn sheet. 

XIII. Hartford,sheet.,. 

XIV. Emporia sheet. 

TEXT FIGURES. 


PagK 


32 

32. 

32 

32 

36 

36 

36 

36 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 


Fio. 1. Permanent metallic bench-mark used by Drainage Investigations, 

Office of Experiment Stations... 17 

2. Cross section of proposed levees for Neosho River... . 24 

3. Cross section of proposed improved and leveed channel of Neosho River, 

Kansas. ... 27 

[Bull. 198] (6) 






















THE PREVENTION OF INJURY BY FLOODS IN THE 
NEOSHO VALLEY, KANSAS. 


INTRODUCTION. 

The flood conditions along the Neosho Iliver Valley in southeastern 
Kansas furnish a striking example of a class of drainage problems 
of great importance in the economic development of this country. 
The situation in this valley was brought to the attention of the 
Drainage Investigations of the Office of Experiment Stations in 
1905 by the residents of the region affected, who asked for information 
upon the best methods of obtaining relief from the injuries resulting 
to agricultural lands from the extensive overflows of the Neosho 
River. The importance of the case, together with the lack of suffi¬ 
cient knowledge among the people vitally interested in the protection 
of the lands to enable them to decide upon the course to pursue, led 
to the investigation of which this bulletin is a report. 

While the investigation has to do with the specific problems 
relating to the drainage and protection of the fertile bottom lands of 
the Neosho River, in Kansas, the same class of problems now con¬ 
fronts the owners of bottom lands in the valleys of small streams in 
other States, giving investigations of this character much more than 
local importance. 

This report first gives a description of the Neosho Valley and an 
account of the injuries that have been wrought by floods in the past; 
next a statement of the methods used and the results obtained in 
the field investigations carried on for the purpose of obtaining the 
necessary data upon which to base a plan for preventing the recur¬ 
rence of injurious overflows. A plan of river improvement is then 
elaborated in detail, fully explained, and recommended for adoption 
by the residents of the Neosho Valley. 

THE NEOSHO VALLEY. 

GENERAL DESCRIPTION. 

As shown by the accompanying map (PI. I) the Neosho River 
rises near Parkerville, in Morris County, Kans., slightly to the east¬ 
ward of the geographical center of the State. It flows southeast into 


[Bull. 198] 


( 7 ) 



8 


Lyon County, where it is joined a few miles east of Emporia by its 
largest tributary, the Cottonwood River, coming from the west. 
Below the junction the channel is 130 feet wide and from 3 to 6 feet 
deep. The Neosho continues in a general southeasterly direction 
through Coffey, Woodson, Allen, and Neosho counties to a point near 
the north line of Labette County, and then flows nearly due south 
through Labette and Cherokee counties to the Kansas-Oklahoma 
line. It finally empties into the Arkansas River near Fort Gibson, 
Okla. This report deals only with that portion of the river within 
the State of Kansas. The more important tributaries of the Neosho, 
in addition to the Cottonwood River mentioned above, are, on the 
west, Big Creek in Coffey County, Turkey Creek in Woodson and 
Coffey counties, Owl Creek in Woodson County, t illage Creek in 
Neosho County, and Labette Creek in Labette County; on the east, 
Deer Creek in Allen County, Big Creek and Canville Creek in Neosho 
County, Hickory Creek, Lightning Creek, and Cherry Creek in 
Labette and Cherokee counties. All of these streams except the 
Cottonwood River are below Burlington in Coffey County. In 
addition there are, of course, numerous less important tributary 
streams. 

The complete drainage basin of tne Neosho River and its tribu¬ 
taries includes 5,090 square miles within the State of Kansas. Its 
boundaries are indicated on the map shown in Plate I. Besides the 
counties previously named, it includes portions of Marion, Chase, 
Anderson, Wilson, and Crawford counties. This drainage basin lies 
between the Kansas and Osage rivers on the north and the Verdigris 
River on the south. The upper portion of the watershed is 30 to 50 
miles wide, with an average width of possibly 40 miles. The country 
is somewhat rolling and hilly, except the bottoms along the streams, 
which are quite flat. The soil is generally a porous loam, under 
which is found a stiff clay with a large amount of loose shale and 
broken limestone. In the vicinity of Hartford, farther down the 
valley, the drainage basin is only about 15 miles wide, but below 
Burlington, in Coffey County, the river receives numerous tributaries 
from either side with a catchment area 20 to 30 miles wide continuing 
to the north line of Oklahoma. In this portion of the valley there 
are many quite extensive areas of limestones, more or less broken, 
scantily covered in many places with a black porous loam, and in 
some places deposits of coal are found. 

No part of the drainage area is mountainous, but it may all be 
classed as a rich agricultural territory. The entire area is thickly 
settled, and at least 70 per cent of the land is in a state of good cul¬ 
tivation, wheat, corn, oats, and grass being the staple crops. By far 
the most fertile portion of the valley is the level bottom lands, vary- 

[Bull. 198] 




U. S. Dept, of Agp., Bui. 198, Office of Expt. Stations. 


Drain. Invest. 


Plate i. 



ft 9 E 


*ARKERVtLLC 1 


MORRIS 


COUNCIL GROl 


DUNLAP 


\MERtCU8 


•i>t IN COL NVILLE 

3 1 IF i V 


\DURHAM 


r n € 


'll 60 


■ YM ° urH EMPOR!A\ 


STRONG 


R £1 £ 


MARI 


YuNOi 


ELMOIflLE 


1SHL RAPlD^y 


! CANADA 


< if HIGH 


(COTTCNPOOL 


MARK N 


HILLSBORO 


XL E MESTL 


CHA 


HARTFORD 


CEDAR GRCVt 


>AULNE 


BAZAAR 


\ C OFFEY 


'io so is \ 


FLORE NCI 


ANDERSON 


BURLINGTON 


^PEABODY 


EO.opU 


'LL ROY- 

-1 V 


'±b_SHO FALL S 


WO CDS. 


^AHARFh 


WRAN 


P=C-GAS -(.-h 

ALL £ MI 


YATES CENTER 


“ 5=£j"jta \fuSMBOLDT 


CLSMORE 


'TORONTO 


I SAYONOURG- 




{CHANUH\ 


WAt.NUT 


SHAH 


L S O N 


FORD 


C RAW 


CHEROKEt 


''A RSONS 


'Ob NO YAU t y . 


COLUMBUS 


BAXTER - 

SPRINGS 


*111 pm 


Map of the Neosho Valley, Kansas, 

































































































































































■"*' ' • % •: >■ ’ i 








. 





















: ' 

' *'■■■■' ' 













9 


ing from 1 to 5 miles in width and lying along all the streams. In 
the upper part of the basin the timber is found only in belts along the 
rivers, but in the lower portion it not infrequently covers larger areas. 

The valley contains numerous thriving towns, among the larger of 
which are the following, named in order along the valley beginning at 
the lower end: Chetopa, near the State line; Oswego, the county 
seat of Labette County; Parsons; Erie, the county seat of Neosho 
County; Chanute; Humboldt; Iola, the county seat of Allen County; 
Neosho Falls; Leroy; Burlington, the county seat of Coffey County; 
Emporia, the county seat of Lyon County; Council Grove, the 
county seat of Morris County; Cottonwood Falls, the county seat of 
Chase County; and Marion, the county seat of Marion County. Of 
these, the larger are Parsons, Chanute, Iola, and Emporia, each 
having a population of nearly or more than 10,000. 

The land surface is in a very'different condition now from what it 
was twenty or forty years ago. Then the land was either timber, 
prairie, or marsh; there were numerous small lakes and swamps, and 
no artificial drainage. Now the land is mostly cleared and is every 
year put into field crops, principally corn and wheat. Public roads 
are found every mile, with ditches of greater or smaller size on either 
side. The lakes and swamps have been drained to a large extent; 
some surface drainage has been done by open ditches and in places 
underdrainage has been begun. 

The best agricultural lands are worth from $50 to $75 per acre, 
while other land, which would be just as good if it were protected 
from overflow, is valued at only $10 to $15 per acre. 

CONDITION OF RIVER CHANNEL. 

The Neosho River is extremely crooked, but has a well-defined 
permanent bed which gradually increases in width from its source 
to its mouth, where it is 500 feet wide and 20 feet deep. The entire 
stretch of river from the State line to Emporia is more or less filled 
with snags, brush, and with gravel bars resulting from these obstruc¬ 
tions. In the lower portion of the river there is a wider channel, 
rather deeper water, and the snags are not so noticeable. As we go 
up the river, the current is more restricted to a narrow channel, 
indicating the presence of numerous snags under the surface, and 
this fact is supported by the changing of the current from side to side 
in comparatively short distances and without the interference of 
bends or change in bank conditions. Above Erie, gravel bars are 
more frequently encountered than below this point in the stream, 
and the current is confined to a few feet in width by accumulation of 
trees, stumps, and brush. Some points are almost impassable for a 
rowboat, either from the great number of snags or their distribution 
over the entire width of the channel. There are riffles on the upper 

[Bull. 198] , 


10 


part of the river from Leroy to Iola that are not the result of a 
natural fall. Soundings show that in some cases the water is rather 
deep from one riffle to the next and has hut little current. This 
indicates that the riffles are formed by the snags and trees in the 
stream. 

All stages of this riffle and bar formation are apparent in an exami¬ 
nation of the stream. No attempt is made at present to prevent the 
timber growing along the channel from going into the river with 
caving banks, nor is the brush cleared from the timber or banks. 
Furthermore, when a farmer clears a piece of land he usually hauls 
the stumps into the timber left standing on the bank, and the first 
high water deposits them on a brush pile in the channel. In cutting 
wood the trimmings are left scattered among the trees and rarely 
burned. When a big tree falls into the river it is .carried into the 
deepest water and lodges there. In time it secures a firm hold, and 
gravel washes down and lodges around it, piling up, collecting drift, 
limbs of trees, and some of the stumps that were hauled to the bank 
of the river. In a year or two, the time depending upon the water 
conditions, floods, etc., this tree, with its accumulation of drift, forms 
a large gravel bar, often entirely covering the original obstruction. 
Here the channel has of necessity been changed to the other side of 
the river. Within a short time a riffle forms where there should be 
an open deep channel. 

The landowners along the river have noticed these facts and seem 
to realize the effect they have upon the discharge of the water, but 
because their neighbors do not attempt to prevent the trash and trees 
from getting into the channel each one feels free to be equally negli¬ 
gent. The landowners were questioned on this matter, particularly 
where the snags were most abundant. Almost without exception 
they agreed as to the damage caused by snags, and many sug¬ 
gested the advisability of some legislation such as is in force in other 
States compelling the clearing of banks, the burning or removal of 
brush and stumps, and other means of preventing drift material from 
entering the channel. They are willing to do this work, but assert 
that it would not be done unless there were some uniformity of clean¬ 
ing up, and some legislation providing for doing the work and for 
taxing the cost up against the property fronting the river, in case the 
property owner failed to do the work himself. If such laws were in 
effect, nearly every farmer would do his share without compulsion 
and thus avoid the extra tax. It is evident to one going over the 
ground that the channel of the river is greatly filled and that an 
immense amount of good would be accomplished by clearing out the 
snags, removing the bars, and cutting the timber on each side. 

The natural features of the tributary streams are similar to those of 
the‘main river. The larger ones have their sources near the edge 

[Bull. 19S] 


11 


of the watershed and flow obliquely toward the river. They are 
crooked and have about the same amount of fall as the river, except 
near their sources, where the slope is much greater. They have well- 
defined flood plains, often of considerable area. Their banks are 
usually wooded, and the stream beds in many places are filled by 
drift and fallen trees. 

FLOODS IN THE NEOSHO VALLEY. 

EARLY FLOODS. 

Ever since this region was first visited by white men there have 
been occasional heavy floods in the valleys of eastern Kansas. While 
there are no extended and complete accounts of the early floods, a 
fair idea of tfyeir extent may be obtained from the following sentences 
quoted frorn an article on the Climatology of Kansas, by T. B. 
Jennings.® 

About the last of February or first of March, 1826, heavy rains began in what is 
now the southeast quarter of the State, raising the Neosho and its tributaries out of 
' their banks and flooding their bottoms; heavy rains continued in the Territory during 
the season. * * * In the fall a destructive flood swept down the Neosho, carry¬ 
ing away wigwams, houses, and gathered and ungathered crops. 

In 1844 occurred probably the worst floods eastern Kansas has ever experienced. 
Rev. Mr. Meeker, who was missionary to the Ottawa Indians, and was living on what 
is now the town site of the city of Ottawa, in his letters gave a graphic account of the 
condition of the Marais des Cygnesand the destruction wrought by it at that point. 
From May 7th to the 20th there were nine days of rain, and daily, 23d to 29th, inclu¬ 
sive; rain began again on June 7, and on the 12th the Marais des Cygnes overflowed 
its banks, carrying away outhouses, fences, cattle, pigs, and chickens; the river began 
falling on the 14th and rising again on the 20th. 

At Fort Leavenworth the rainfall for June, 1844, was 8.53 inches; July, 12 inches; 
August, 8.08 inches—aggregating 28.61 inches for the three months (normal annual 
precipitation for that place is 30.89 inches). 

In 1885 an unusualty high and destructive flood occurred. The 
following notes on this flood are taken from an account published by 
the Chief Signal Officer of the U. S. Army. 6 

Neosho Falls, Woodson County .—Nearly all of the eastern part of the town was 
inundated on July 3. In the lowlands in this vicinity the crops were entirely 
destroyed and much stock drowned. All residents in the northern part of the town 
were compelled to move. 

.Humboldt, Allen County .—On July 3d the Neosho River at this place rose 3 feet 
higher than ever before known. 

Parsons, Labette County .—During the night of the 1st of July, all creeks and ravines 
in the region were much swollen. * * * The Labette lowlands were submerged, 
compelling the people to abandon their homes. Considerable damage was done to 
crops, especially to small grain which was nearly ready for harvest. 

“Trans. Kans. Acad. Sei., Vol. XX, Part II, p. 273. 
b Mo. Wqather Rev., 13 (1885), p. 181. 


[Bull. 1 us j 



12 


FLOODS OF 1903 AND 1904. 

Following 1885, the next serious flood seems to have been in 1903. 
This would have been considered a serious flood if it had not been 
dwarfed into relative insignificance by comparison with the much 
more destructive floods during 1904. During the latter year the 
Neosho River was at flood stage several times between the middle 
of May and the middle of July. Throughout its entire course it 
overflowed its banks from 3 to 5 feet deep and the area covered by 
the flood water exceeded 300 square miles. The approximate 
boundaries of the flooded area are shown by the dotted lines on 
Plates II to XIV. 

An extended account of this flood has been published by the U. S. 
Geological Survey 0 and from this account some of the following facts 
have been taken: 

At J. R. Soden’s mill, near Emporia, the highest water prior to 1904 was on May 
28, 1903. On June 3, 1904, the water was 28 inches higher at this mill than on May 
28, 1903, and on July 5 and 6, 1904, the water was 22 inches higher than on May v 28, 
1903. At the Emporia Waterworks Company pumping station the highest water 
prior to 1904 was on May 29, 1903. On July 6, 1904, the highest water was observed, 
which was about 1 inch higher than on May 29, 1903. 

At Neosho Rapids the highest stage of water was reached July 7, 1904, which was 
about 2\ feet higher than the highest stage of 1903. 

At Iola the highest stage of the flood was reached July 10, 1904, and was about 2 
feet higher than the maximum stage of 1903. 

At Humboldt the highest water was observed July 10, 1904, and was about 3 feet 
higher than the flood of 1903, and 1 foot higher than the flood of 1885. 

At Chanute the 1904 flood was about 2 feet higher than the 1903 flood and about 8 
inches higher than the 1885 flood. 

EXTENT OF INJURY FROM FLOODS. 

The flood of 1904 is the most notable of all those recorded, by reason 
of the widespread injury to property which resulted. The water 
spread over the bottom lands throughout the entire valley, destroy¬ 
ing a large acreage of crops. Fences and buildings were washed 
away and private roads and bridges were destroyed. Much live 
stock was drowned, meadows and pastures were completely ruined, 
and in places the land itself was injured by the erosion of the current. 
The highways crossing the valley were rendered impassable and much 
damage was done to the bridges and culverts, and in some places to 
the grade of the road. Parts of many towns and villages along the 
river were greatly damaged. Railroads suffered from injuries to 
their roadbeds, buildings, and grounds; trains could not run for 
several days, and travel was entirely suspended in the valley except 
by boat. Some of the oil companies were driven from their field of 
operations, and their property suffered more or less injury from the 

°U. S. Geol. Survey, Water-Supply and Irrig. Paper No. 147, pp. 85, 89-91. 

[Bull. 198] 



13 


overflow; the levees along the river in Neosho County were seriously 
damaged. 

It is difficult to compute the damage done to property along the 
Neosho River and its tributaries by the floods of 1904, but a con¬ 
servative estimate places it at $1,200,000. 

There are, in addition, various indirect harmful results which follow 
overflows. The tame grass is killed and the seeds of noxious weeds 
are widely disseminated. The overflowed ground is rendered diffi¬ 
cult to cultivate by the standing of the water upon it. The stagnant 
water remaining after the subsidence of the flood is a menace to the 
healthfulness of the region. But perhaps the most far-reaching 
indirect injury lies in the discouraging effect which overflow has 
upon the further cultivation and development of the land for agri¬ 
culture. Destructive floods have occurred so frequently during the 
past decade that many residents of the valley are disheartened and 
fear to plant a crop lest it be destroyed. 

Although the bottom land is the most fertile in that region, farmers 
who cultivate it feel that they take great risk of losing both seed and 
labor. The danger of the loss of a crop introduces an element of 
uncertainty most detrimental to good agriculture. A tenant with 
small capital prefers the upland, although it is less productive, 
because he can not afford to run the risk of loss; and those who own 
and cultivate the land in the bottom do it in only a half-hearted way. 

Fortunately, most of the tributaries of the Neosho are short and 
drain comparatively small areas, while several of the longer ones, as 
Labette, Cherry, and Lightning creeks, empty into the river near 
the State fine, so that in case of a heavy rain their water is usually 
discharged before that from the upper part of the valley reaches this 
portion of the stream; but frequently, when the parent stream is 
about full, a heavy rain on the country drained by these lower tribu¬ 
taries throws them out of their banks because they have no outlet. 
So long as these creeks can empty into the river without hindrance 
there is little damage done by their overflow, as the flood water runs 
off the land very rapidly. Although disastrous floods do not occur 
throughout the valley every year, there are many places where the 
land is so low that it rarely escapes some damage each season. 

PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS AT FLOOD PROTECTION. 

The necessity'for protecting the land from overflow has led to 
numerous isolated attempts in the past to prevent injury by building 
levees to shut out the floods. Levee building was begun in Neosho 
County in 1892, and had gradually extended until previous to the 
1904 floods 19 different levee districts had been organized along the 
river. These districts varied in size from 220 to 2,000 acres. The 

[Bull. 198] 


14 


height of the levees was referred to the height of the greatest flood of 
1885, the crown of the levees being intended to be from 1J to 2 feet 
above the flood heights of that year. The top width of the levees 
varied from 3 to 6 feet, the widest being those most recently built. 

The side slopes of the levees varied between 1J to 1 and 2 to 1, 
and their greatest height was about 10 feet. The material for the 
construction of the levees, obtained on the ground, was usually very 
good for the purpose, containing a considerable proportion of clay. 
The cost of construction ranged from 7 to 18 cents per cubic yard 
and the cost per acre reclaimed from $8 to $12. 

The cost per year for repairs varied widely, ranging from nothing 
to $1.25 per acre, but generally amounted to 25 or 50 cents an acre. 
Some levees required no repairs for nine years after construction. 
These levees protected the land against all ordinary floods, and as 
most of the land thus protected was nearly valueless without them, 
they well repaid the cost of their construction. But most of them 
were inadequate for the 1904 flood, and were much injured as a 
result of being overtopped by the water. 

OBJECTS OF THE INVESTIGATION AND SURVEY. 

The immediate objects of this investigation were: 

(1) To determine whether or not it is practicable and will prove 
profitable to protect the bottom lands from overflow. 

(2) If found feasible to secure such protection, to determine the best 
plan to be adopted for the work. 

(3) To estimate the cost of the proposed improvements and the 
benefits which would result therefrom. 

(4) To recommend the plan best adapted to secure the execution 
of the work. 

For the intelligent solution of these questions, it is evident that a 
large amount of physical data was required, necessitating an ex¬ 
tended survey of the river channel and its valley. 

DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY. 

A field party under the immediate charge of Lawrence Brett com¬ 
menced work at Chetopa July 20, 1906, and carried the survey up 
the river to Le Boy, where the work was suspended in December, 1906, 
on account of the inclement weather. The field work was resumed 
in May, 1907, and completed about July 1, 1907, consuming in all 
about seven months of actual working time. 

During the survey 350 miles of levels were run, the course of the 
river and the lower portions of its tributaries were mapped, and 300 
square miles of overflow land were examined. A line of check levels 
was run the entire length of the valley and 20 standard metallic 

[Bull. 198] 


15 


bench-marks were set at various important points. The cross section 
of the river channel was measured at 122 places, and a record was 
kept at various locations of the stage of water in the river during 
the period covered by the survey. 

The river channel was mapped by measuring its position with 
reference to section lines and subdivision land lines, which are gen¬ 
erally well marked throughout the valley. Levels were carried con¬ 
tinuously up the valley and in addition level lines were run across 
the valley on section lines until the boundaries of the flooded area 
were reached and located. A sounding party followed the river 
channel with a rowboat, taking soundings and measuring the cross 
section of the river channel on section lines. These various kinds of 
work were carried on simultaneously and kept together so that a 
chaining party, a level party, and a sounding party, with the addi¬ 
tion of a teamster, formed the whole group in the field. 

RESULTS OF SURVEY. 

The survey shows a total fall in the river bed of the Neosho of 322 
feet from Emporia to the Kansas-Oklahoma line. The distance by 
the river channel is about 234 miles, giving an average fall of 1.37 
feet per mile. 

From Iola to the State line is 129 miles by the channel, although 
only 67.5 miles in a straight line, and the total fall is 163 feet, or 
about 1.26 feet fall per mile, along the channel. The area of the 
cross section of the channel in this portion, as determined by the 
average of 71 measured cross sections, is about 5,200 square feet. 

PROFILE DATA. 

The following table of profile data summarizes the more important 
level results obtained. It shows the elevations above sea level at 
each of the measured cross sections of the river channel. The loca¬ 
tions of these cross sections are shown on the detail maps (Plates II 
to XIY). The table gives the distances in feet between consecutive 
cross sections and also gives at each cross section the elevation of the 
river bed, the elevation of the low-water surface, the elevation of the 
average land surface near the river banks, and of the high-water mark. 


[Bull. 198] 


16 


Profile-data. 

t 

NEOSHO RIVER, KANSAS. 



Dis¬ 

tance 

Elevations above sea level. 


Dis¬ 

tance 

Elevations above sea level. 











Cross 

along 

channel 





Cross 

along 

channel 





sec¬ 

tion 

No. 

from 

preced¬ 

ing 

Water 

surface. 

River 

bottom. 

Average 

land 

surface. 

High- 

water 

mark. 

sec¬ 

tion 

No. 

from 

preced¬ 

ing 

Water 

surface. 

River 

bottom. 

Average 

land 

surface. 

High- 

water 

mark. 


cross 






cross 






section. 






section. 






Feet. 

Feet. 

Feet. 

Feet. 

Feet. 


Feet. 

Feet. 

Feet. 

\ 

Feet . 

Feet. 

1 


762.2 

758.8 

780.2 

786.2 

64 

8,185 

J 908.5 

| 900.4 

928.6 

933.0 

2 

7,625 
15,940 

763.0 

757.2 

780. 6 

t 901. 7 

3 

769.1 

765.4 

782.7 

787.6 

65 

12,150 

908.5 

900.8 

932. 6 

937.0 

4 

6,125 

770.4 

767.2 

785.3 

787.6 

66 

5, 440 

908.8 

903.8 

934.8 

939.7 

5 

8,125 

772.1 

770.3 

787.4 

787.1 

67 

6,760 

909. 4 

906.5 

937. 7 

94° 4 

• 6 

9,125 

772.2 

770.0 

791.8 


68 

6,760 

910. 6 

909.4 

940. 0 

944. 4 

7 

6,000 
10,000 

773.3 

767.0 

792. 4 


69 

8,980 
8, 550 

915.2 

910.0 

940. 4 

946.0 

8 

775.2 

771.2 

794.2 

798.5 

70 

916. 6 

913.2 

943.3 

947.6 

9 

5,625 
6,500 

776.3 

770.5 

796.6 


71 

16,000 

f 931.4 
\ 924.6 

} 923.0 

944. 4 

948.2 

10 

777.8 

772.5 

800.3 

802.5 

11 

5,625 

14,060 

778. 4 

774.6 

801. 8 


72 

7,920 

931. 4 

920.0 

945. 0 

950. 0 

12 

782.8 

779.0 

803.3 

806.7 

73 

7,020 

931. 4 

924. 4 

947.2 

952.0 

13 

8,125 

783.8 

782.4 

805.4 


74 

6,760 

931. 4 

921.2 

950. 6 

955. 2 

14 



75 

9,290 
12, 460 

931. 4 

922. 2 

951.0 

956.8 

15 

17,000 
5,875 

790. 8 

784.0 

807.4 


75h 

932. 4 

925.2 

951.0 

957.2 

16 

791.0 

786.4 

809.6 

814.6 

76 

12, 560 

934.0 

932.0 

956. 8 

958.6 

17 

8, 440 

793. 4 

789.4 

812. 3 

817.2 

77 

12, 300 

936.6 

931.0 

960.6 

964. 8 

18 

9,625 

795.3 

789.7 

815.6 

819.0 

78 

6,080 

938.6 

935. 4 

966.0 

969. 6 

19 

6,500 

797.4 

795.1 

817.8 

820.0 

79 

4,490 
6,070 

942.2 

937.7 

964.6 

970.0 

20 

10,875 
6, 750 
8,375 

800.8 

798.0 

819.6 


80 

f 952.6 
\ 945.4 
952.8 

1 943.0 

1 

943.0 

966.0 

973.0 

21 

804.1 

801.0 

820.6 


22 

808.1 

806. 7 

824.1 

830.5 

81 

9,720 

969. 4 

973. 4 

23 

6,250 
9, 500 

809.0 

805.2 

824.9 


82 

14, 480 

954. 0 

943.0 

974. 3 

978. 2 

24 

809.7 

806.4 

828.3 

832.9 

83 

19, 540 

958.3 

947.2 

977.0 

980. 4 

25 

7,000 

810.6 

802.7 

830.0 

834.9 

84 

10, 980 

959.6 

954.0 

978.8 

982. 4 

26 

4,625 

811.1 

808.3 

832.3 

837.4 

85 

17,210 

962.8 

956.0 

986.0 

991.0 

27 

10,250 

813.7 

814. 5 

833.0 

839.7 

86 

15, 840 

972.6 

965. 2 

991. 4 

996. 0 

28 

10,500 
6,125 

815.9 

812.1 

834.2 


87 

5, 625 

975.2 

974. 6 

995. 3 

997. 4 

29 

816.5 

816.7 

836.5 

841.5 

88 

12; 825 

977.3 

974.7 

998. 5 

1,000. 4 

30 

9,500 
5, 750 

819.6 

820.3 

839.7 


89 

12, 500 

978.1. 

970. 4 

999. 7 

1.003.0 

31 

825.8 

825.8 

842.9 

847.6 

90 

7,000 

982.0 

970.6 

1.002. 1 

1,006.0 

32 

22, 440 

826.7 

822.0 

845.9 

849.9 

91 

15, 800 

982. 5 

975.8 

1,004.8 

1,008.6 

33 

22,500 

827.9 

823.8 

848.5 

853.5 

92 

6, 750 

983.0 

977. 4 

1,007.7 

1,012.8 

34 

7,500 

830. 3 

824.0 

852.2 

855. 4 

93 

6,000 

8.875 
8, 250 

6,250 
5,500 

5.875 

985. 0 

983. 4 

1,010. 2 


35 

18, 750 

832.8 

827.6 

855.3 


94 

989.2 

984.7 

1 013.6 

1,018.0 

36 

17,100 

836. 4 

828.8 

856.7 


95 

1,003.0 

992.9 

1,017.0 

37 

9,250 

837.2 

833.8 

861.1 


96 

1.003.0 

996. 5 

1,020.1 


38 

9,750 
6,000 

837.4 

831.4 

862.1 


97 

1,003. 6 

992. 3 

1, 020. 5 
1,022.3 

1,023.7 

1,029.2 

39 

838.3 

835.0 

862.9 

869.8 

98 

1 j 003. 7 

1,000.2 

40 

13,375 

844. 4 

842.5 

864. 5 


93 

7,625 
13, 625 
15,875 
23,375 
13, 250 

7, 625 

1,008. 5 

1 , 001.1 

1,026. 3 


41 

16, 750 
10, 750 

851.5 

846.8 

870.8 


100 

i; 008. 6 
1,010.9 
1,012.7 

C000. 5 
1,006.6 
1,011. 3 

1,029. 4 
1,032. 3 
1,037.7 
1,044. 7 

1,032. 5 
1,035.6 

42 

852.3 

' 846.4 

876.1 


101 

43 

24, 500 

855.7 

847.0 

880.9 


102 

44 

11,750 

857.6 

851.5 

882.7 


103 

1,022.1 

1,020.5 

1,018.1 

1,024.0 


45 

10,250 
5, 625 

859.1 

854.2 

883.8 


104 

1 022 5 

1,045. 4 
1,048.2 

1,046.8 
1,052.1 

46 

860.5 

858.3 

885.4 

887.2 

105 

12,000 

1,025.2 

47 

9,500 

862.5 

855.8 

889.1 

891.6 

106 

11,250 

1,031.7 

1,029. 3 

1,051.0 

1,053.5 

48 

6,500 
14, 625 

862. 8 

856. 8 

892.5 


107 

11 750 

1,034. 4 
1,042.1 

1,032.7 

1,036.5 

1,055.2 
1,059.6 
1,062.8 
1,065. 8 

i; 059.1 

49 

866.9 

863. 0 

894.0 


108 

8,125 

50 

6,500 

868. 0 

864.3 

894.5 


109 

15, 500 
13, 750 

1,042. 4 

1,030.7 


51 

5,625 

868. 4 

864.2 

895.0 

903.8 

110 

1,042. 5 

1,037.7 


52 

5,750 

870.6 

869. 4 

896. 8 


111 

13, 500 
6,375 

1,048. 0 
1,049. 0 

1,037.8 

1,044.0 

1,068.3 
1,070. 0 

1,073. 2 

53 

1R 375 

876.7 

872.6 

899.8 

907.5 

112 

54 

6, 500 

877.3 

872. 0 

902. 9 


113 

16,125 
12, .500 

1,049. 6 
1,052. 0 

1,047. 8 
1,051. 4 

1,075.5 

1,079. 5 

55 

13,000 

882.0 

876.2 

906. 7 

911. 8 

114 

56 

10, 000 

884.1 

881.3 

907.7 

915. 2 

115 




57 

9, 375 

887.2 

884.2 

909.3 


116 

19,500 

8,125 

1,058. 2 
1,062. 6 

1,057. 8 
1,058.8 

1,082.3 
1,086. 6 

1,086.6 
1,090. 5 

58 

7,760 

890.7 

886.1 

914.0 

918.0 

117 

59 

11,500 

895.2 

889.3 

914.7 

919. 1 

118 

9,500 

1,065. 5 

1,058. 5 

1,090. 3 

1, 092. 6 

60 

6,070 

895.6 

891.3 

918. 4 

922. 8 

119 

15, 500 

1,074. 8 

1,070.5 

1,097. 8 

61 

9,240 

896.7 

888.8 

922.1 

926. 4 

120 

6,375 

1,074.9 

1,074. 4 

1,102.0 

1,103.9 

62 

6,020 

897. 4 

893.6 

927.0 

928. 4 

121 

12,2.50 

1,081.5 

1,078.6 

1,080.2 

1,106.0 

1,110.0 

63 

13,250 

897.4 

893.7 

924.0 

9§2.0 

122 

13,000 

1,084. 1 












COTTONWOOD RIVER, KANSAS. 


Cl... 


1,052.0 

1,059.2 

1,045. 8 


1,083.8 
1,086.1 

C 2... 

26,500 

1,057.5 

1,082.1 

C 3... 

6,825 

1,061. 4 

1,060.2 

1,086.8 

1,088.3 

C 4... 

7,000 

1,064.9 

1,058. 8 

1,089. 0 

1,094.1 


9,125 

1,065.9 

1,061.8 

1,092.5 

8,000 

1,070.5 

1,068.3 

1,095.3 

9,125 

1,073.1 

1,069.3 

1,094.5 

8,750 

1,081.4 

1,075. 0 

1,097. 7 


[Bull. 198] 


























































































































17 


BENCH-MARKS. 

In all the towns along the portion of the river traversed bv the sur¬ 


vey permanent bench-marks were 
set in prominent locations. These 
bench-marks are made of pieces 
of 3-inch wrought iron pipe with 
a length of 4 feet, set vertically 
in the ground, with about 8 
inches of the pipe above the sur¬ 
face. The pipe is anchored by a 
flange on its lower end and on 
its upper end carries a brass 
cap bearing the legend: 11 Office 
Experiment Stations, Drainage, 
U. S. Department Agriculture.” 
On a raised portion of the cap the 
elevation of the highest point of 
the cap above sea level is stamped, 
as shown in figure 1. 

The locations and elevations of 
these permanent bench-marks in 
follows: 

Location, description, and elevation of 



Fig. 1 .—Permanent metallic bench-mark, used 
by Drainage Investigations, Office of Experi¬ 
ment Stations. 


the Neosho Valley, Kansas, are as 
bench-marks in Neosho Valley, Kansas. 


Location. 


Description. 



Elevation 
above sea 
level. 


Chetopa... 
Oswego.... 
Gatewoods 


Matthewson 


St. Paul 


Erie. 

Shaw 


Rollin. 

Chanute. 

Humboldt... 

Iola. 

Neosho Falls 

Le Roy. 

Burlington.. 

Strawn. 

Hartford.... 
Wyckoff. 


Neosho Rapids.... 
Emporia. 


Northeast corner of power house, close to wall. 

Northwest corner of court-house. 

At south side of east and west road, one-fourth of a mile east of Gate- 
wood’s house. The post is set 6 inches outside fence line, center of 
north line of sec. 16, T. 32 S., R. 21 E. 

Northwest corner of New Hope M. E. Church lot, Matthewson 
(Strauss), 71.8 feet from church, northeast corner of sec. 23, T. 31 S., 
R. 21. E. 

East side of north and south road, 7 feet north of hedge comer and (5 
feet outside of hedge, southwest comer of sec. 16, T. 30 S., R. 21 E. 

In sidewalk by south wall of St. Paul State Bank, 7 feet west of door at 
southeast corner, opposite city park. 

Northwest corner of court-house.,. 

250 feet northwest of Santa Fe depot, on northeast corner of the prop¬ 
erty of John C. Guss, on south side of bridge road. 

Southeast corner of general store.. 

Southeast corner of Santa Fe Station Park.. 

Beside northeast foundation pier, water tower, at northeast corner of 
public square. 

Beside west entrance of court-house, 6 feet to north of threshold.. 

At northwest corner of Congregational Church, Seventh and Main 
streets. 

At southeast corner of high school... 

At northeast corner of court-house. 

At southwest corner of Hamlin and Houser’s general store. 

By walk in northeast corner of city park.... 

On north side of east and west road, about 300feet southwestof M., K. & 
T. Rwy. depot at Wyckoff, 5 feet east of front gate of W. H. Wyek- 
off’s property. 

5 feet north of southwest corner of schoolhouse. 

South side of entrance to court-house. 


Feet. 
801.25 
915.30 
841. 70 


847.20 


849. 60 

896. 50 

897. 58 
909.22 


910.28 
938. 57 
^ 983.55 

967.08 
972. 40 

1,006. 60 
1,036.00 
1,042. 90 
1,084.50 
1,074.90 


1,093. 80 
1,143. 30 


30023—H ill]. 198—08-2 














































































































18 


CARRYING CAPACITY OF CHANNELS. 


The amount of water flowing in a stream or the discharge of a 
stream, as it is often called, is usually measured in cubic feet per 
second. It is obtained by multiplying the area of the cross section 
of the stream, measured in square feet, by the average velocity of 
the current measured in feet per second. In the case of an existing 
stream the area of the cross section can be measured with compara¬ 
tive ease, but the correct value of the average velocity is much more 
difficult to determine. This is because, in the first place, there are 
no reliable and easily used instruments for measuring the velocity 
oh a current of water; and in the second place, the current changes so 
much in different portions of the stream that many measurements 
are necessary to secure a reliable average. 

To estimate the discharge of a channel in advance of its construc¬ 
tion is a still more difficult matter. The size of the channel may be 
accurately known, but the velocity which the water will take can 
only be estimated by a comparison with other similar existing chan¬ 
nels. The formula, first proposed by Chezy in 1775, used for com¬ 
puting the velocity is as follows: 

Let v =the average velocity of the stream in feet per second. 
a=the area of the cross section in square feet. 
p =wetted perimeter of the cross section, that is, the portion 
of the boundary of the cross section in which the water 
is in contact with the banks and bed of the channel, 
measured in feet. 

s = slope of the surface of the stream, or the amount of fall of 
the surface in a distance of 1 foot, measured up and 
down the stream. 


C = a numerical coefficient. 
Then v = 0 



G is a number determined by the measurement of existing streams. 
It is supposed to be a constant number for streams of the same sort, 
but it has widely differing values for streams of different kinds, and 
if changes somewhat with the size of the stream. The proper value 
for C depends chiefly upon the condition of the banks and bed of the 
channel. It is high for a stream with smooth, straight banks and 
correspondingly low when the banks and bed are rough and obstructed 
by any form of vegetable growth, stones, and debris. For water 
flowing in channels formed of natural earth, such as streams and 
open ditches, the correct value of 0 may be anywhere between 40 
and 100. For well-constructed, clean ditches, C is usually between 
60 and 100, depending chiefly on the size of the ditch. Its value is 
greater the larger the ditch. Values of C for ordinary use may be 
taken from tables or may be calculated from formulas which have 


[Bull. 198] 


19 


been devised for the purpose. The two formulas in most common 
use for this purpose are Kutter’s, devised in 1869, and Bazin’s, pro¬ 
posed in 1897. Their use will be exemplified later. 

In any case, the determination of the proper value of the coefficient 
C for use in any particular instance is a matter for the most careful 
exercise of judgment, based upon the results of extensive experience. 

In the formula given above for velocity the fraction — is called 

V 

the hydraulic radius of the stream. To a certain degree it repre¬ 
sents the average depth of the stream. The formula shows that the 
velocity is proportional to the square root of the hydraulic radius 
and also is proportional to the square root of the slope. 

When the value of C is 89, the velocity may be expressed by 
Elliott’s formula, 

in which/ = the fall of the stream in feet per mile. 

To sum up, the velocity of flow varies as the square root of the 
slope of the stream, is approximately proportional to the square root 
of the depth of the water, and depends very largely upon the con¬ 
dition of the stream channel. Sharp bends in the stream, sunken 
logs, stumps, brush, trees, weeds, grass, and irregular and rough 
banks all tend greatly to decrease the velocity and consequently also 
the discharge of the stream. 

RUN-OFF AND RAINFALL. 

The amount of water which runs from a drainage basin by way of 
the natural drainage channels is spoken of in general as run-off. A 
study of the distribution and amount of run-off is indispensable in 
any investigation dealing with flood conditions. 

From 1895 to 1903 the U. S. Geological Survey maintained a river 
gage at Iola on which daily readings of the height of the water surface 
were taken during most of that period. The discharge of the river 
was determined on numerous occasions by means of current meter 
measurements of the velocity, from which the maximum discharge 
of the river each year was estimated. The results of these measure¬ 
ments as published by the Geological Survey® are as follows: 


Maximum discharge of Neosho River at Iola, Kans. 
[Drainage Basin, 3,670 square miles.] 


Year. 

Date. 

Gage 
height 
in feet. 

Maximum 
discharge 
in cubic 
feet per 
second. 

Year. 

Date. 

Gage 
height 
in feet. 

Maximum 
discharge 
in cubic 
feet per 
second. 


Sept. 12 
May 24 
Mar. 5 
June 27 
June 9 

21.00 
21.10 
6.35 
20.50 
17.03 


1900. 

Nov. 2 
Apr. 17 
June 11 
June 3 
July 10 

18.95 
13.30 
21.25 
22.00 
24.00 

30,411 
19,250 
35,550 
39,120 
74,600 

ISQfi 

45,560 
4,840 
27,875 
22,191 

1901. 

1»Q7 

1902. 

l«os 

1903._ 

1809 

1904. 




[Bull. 198] a u. S. Geol. Survey, Water-Supply and Irrig. Paper No. 147, p. 86. 





























20 


Daily readings of the Geological Survey gage at Iola were not 
maintained during 1904, but the value given in the table, 24 feet, 
was obtained by a subsequent examination of the high-water mark. 
The maximum discharge for 1904, given in the above table, was esti¬ 
mated to consist" of 40,000 cubic feet per second flowing in the chan¬ 
nel and 34,600 cubic feet per second of overflow. The manner of 
making the estimate is indicated in the following quotation from the 
above paper: 

This estimate of the discharge is necessarily very roughly approximated, as no 
measurements of velocity were made. It was necessary to estimate the velocity of 
the overflow from the amount of scour on the roadbed of the Missouri Pacific Railway. 
This railroad crosses the valley on an embankment. The flood passed over this 
embankment on both sides of the river and had a width of about 1J miles on the right 
bank and a width of about one-half mile on the left bank. The maximum depth, from 
actual measurement of the water above the surface of the rail, was 4 feet at the deepest 
place. The stone ballast of the road was badly washed out in places, and the track 
was saved from washing away only by being held down. 

This estimate of the overflow portion of the flood must be regarded 
at the' best as only a rude approximation, which may be much larger 
or smaller than the true volume of flow. This is true of all estimates 
now available of flood flow after the water overtops the banks of 
the river channel. Gage readings of the stream, taken after the 
water has spread over the wide valley, can not be used in construct¬ 
ing the discharge curve for the stream under these conditions. 

The rainfall over eastern Kansas is extremely variable, not only 
between different years, but during the same season in different locali¬ 
ties. For 1904, the U. S. Weather Bureau kept daily rainfall records 
at four points, so situated as to be of value for comparison with 
the discharge at Iola. These points, arranged in order along the val¬ 
ley beginning at the upper end, are Marion, Emporia, Burlington, and 
Yates Center. The latter is on Owl Creek, a branch of the Neosho 
joining the main stream below Humboldt, but it may be considered 
representative of a lower portion of the watershed which would affect 
the river stage at Iola. 

Of the total rainfall, only a portion runs off through the natural 
water courses. A large part is evaporated directly into the air, either 
from the surface of the soil or through the leaves of growing vegeta¬ 
tion. Moreover, while the rain falls during comparatively brief 
periods of time at a relatively rapid rate, the run-off is spread over a 
much longer period of time and hence takes place at a much slower 
rate. The maximum rate of run-off is affected by numerous condi¬ 
tions besides the simple quantity of rainfall. The distribution and 
intensity of the rains, the size, shape, and topography of the water¬ 
shed, the nature of the surface, the covering of the ground, whether 
bare or covered with luxuriant vegetation, all probably affect the 
maximum rate of run-off. This rate is higher for rolling country such 

[Bull. 198] 



21 


as forms a large portion of the Neosho watershed than it is for a 
flatter area. Probably the rate is affected by the settlement and ex¬ 
tension of the cultivated area of any region. But the effects of the 
various factors are so complex and interrelated that it is not possible 
to reduce them to calculation. 

In default of exact measured determinations of discharge, the re¬ 
sults of actual measurements made in other localities form the most 
reliable basis for estimating the probable run-off from a given drain¬ 
age area. For comparison with the Neosho Valley we may properly 
consider the drainage basin of the Cedar River in Iowa. From 1903 
to 1906, inclusive, a gaging station has been maintained at Cedar 
Rapids on this river by the U. S. Geological Survey, the records of 
which are published in various numbers of the series of Water-Supply 
and Irrigation Papers. The watershed above Cedar Rapids embraces 
about 6,300 square miles, and in shape and in the rolling nature 
of its topography it resembles the drainage basin of the Neosho. 
During the period of measurement the highest discharge at Cedar 
Rapids was 51,600 cubic feet per second on May 31, 1903. This is 
equivalent to a run-off of 0.30 inch in depth over the whole water¬ 
shed in 24 hours. This flood was caused by a protracted rainfall last¬ 
ing for 3 days over the whole drainage basin on May 25, 26, and 
27. The average rainfall was determined from records obtained by 
the U. S. Weather Bureau at 11 different stations well distributed 
over the whole area. This average rainfall was 3.33 inches for the 
3 days, or 1.11 inches per day. There was a slight amount of 
rain on the fourth day, which, if included, makes the total precipita¬ 
tion for the storm 3.55 inches in*4 days. This storm came at the end 
of a month of unusually wet, rainy weather. 

The flood of July 10, 1904, on the Neosho was caused by a rain com¬ 
ing at the end of 3 months of rainy weather and lasting for 5 
days, July 4 to 8. As determined by the average precipitation at the 
four stations previously mentioned, the total rainfall for the heaviest 
3 days, July 5-7, was 4.39 inches; including the precipitation on 
July 4, the total was 5.08 inches for 4 days; and including July 8, it 
was 5.30 inches for 5 days. If the maximum rate of run-off is pro¬ 
portional to the rainfall, which seems the most rational assumption 
N to be made in the default of knowledge of a more exact relation, a 
comparison of the Cedar Valley and Neosho Valley rainfalls with the 
known maximum rate of run-off of 0.30 inch in 24 hours at Cedar 
Rapids gives the following values of the amount of run-off at Iola, 
Kans.: 0.40 inch in 24 hours, based on a comparison of 3 days’ rain¬ 
fall; 0.43 inch in 24 hours, based on a comparison of 4 days’ rainfall; 
and 0.45 inch in 24 hours, based on a comparison of the 5 days’ rain¬ 
fall in the Neosho Valley with the 4 days’ rainfall in the Cedar Valley. 
The run-off of 0.45 inch in 24 hours would correspond to a discharge 

[Bull. 198] 


22 


of 44,400 cubic feet per second at Iola. It seems probable that the 
maximum rate of run-off increases at a faster rate than the total 
precipitation, and hence this computed maximum discharge at Iola 
should be increased by 10 per cent or more. 

POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS TO A CHANNEL. 

The carrying capacity of a channel may be increased in two ways: 
First, by enlarging the cross section of the channel, either by the 
removal of obstructions from its banks and bed or by the actual exca¬ 
vation of an enlarged channel; second, by cutting the bends of the chan¬ 
nel so as to shorten it and hence increase the slope and therefore the 
velocity of the moving water. Moreover, removing obstructions 
from the banks of a channel also increases the velocity by lessening the 
retarding influences opposing the current. The formula given pre¬ 
viously shows that the velocity is proportional to the square root of 
the slope. Hence, if it were possible by cutting bends to reduce the 
length of a given channel to exactly half its original length, the slope 
of the channel would thereby be exactly doubled, and since the square 
root of 2 is 1.41, the velocity would be increased by 41 per cent. 

Similarly, if the slope could be increased to 4 times its original 
amount, the velocity and discharge would be doubled. On the other 
hand, if the area of the cross section of the channel could be increased 
to 4 times its original amount, preserving the same shape, the carrying 
capacity would be 5.6 times its original volume, on account of the 
increase of velocity due to the larger channel, combined with the greater 
area of cross section. 

The course of the Neosho is very crooked, the channel being about 
twice as long as a straight line between its source and its mouth. In 
some places it loops back and forth across the valley in a series of 
sharp bends, increasing its length as much as five times that of a 
direct course between the same points. There is an opinion through¬ 
out the valley that if these bends were cut through and the channel 
straightened the stream would not overflow its banks. It is even 
claimed by the advocates of this plan that a channel much smaller 
than the cross section of the river would accomplish this object. But 
the great expense of such excavation, as compared with any benefits 
that may be expected to result from it, shows that but little can be 
recommended along the line of cutting bends in the river. This 
method of increasing the capacity of a stream has two important 
limitations which should always be taken into account. If the chan¬ 
nel in the bend is smaller than that below, into which the cut-off, if 
made, would discharge, such an improvement would add to the carry¬ 
ing value of the channel. If, however, the channel for its entire length 
is nearly uniform in section, the straightening process should be sys- 

[Bull. 108] 


23 


tematically followed throughout, otherwise a congestion of water and 
overflow will take place at points where such conditions were unknown 
previous to the changes made in the course of the channel. However, 
by cutting off bends where practicable, by clearing out driftwood and 
snags, removing gravel bars, chopping down overhanging trees, and 
removing any other obstructions, the carrying capacity of the present 
channel may be increased about 10 per cent, and is an improvement 
that should under no consideration be neglected. 

However, after all feasible improvements of this character have been 
executed, further measures will be necessary if the valuable bottom 
lands are to be protected from overflow at times of highest water in 
the river. To accomplish this object, levees will be needed, such as 
have already been tried on a small but usually inadequate scale in 
Neosho County. 

PROTECTION BY LEVEES. 

The channel of the Neosho River is not large enough to carry away 
the water that reaches it, at times of greatest flood, with sufficient 
rapidity to prevent overflow of the adjacent bottoms, unless they are 
protected from the encroaching water by dikes or levees. From the 
measurements made of the channel we find that throughout the lower 
portion of the valley it has an effective bottom width of about 160 feet, 
a top width of 240 feet, and a depth of 25 feet. This gives an area of 
5,000 square feet, a wetted perimeter of approximately 250 feet, and a 
hydraulic radius of 20 feet. The fall is 1.26 feet per mile, giving a 
slope of 0.00024. Using as a coefficient of roughness 0.0275, Rutter’s 
formula gives 90 as the value of the coefficient C. Hence, the formula 

v= CyJ% gives a velocity of 6.2 feet per second and a corresponding 

discharge of 31,000 cubic feet per second. This result seems to agree 
with actual past measurements, which show that when the stream 
reaches a flow of from 30,000 to 35,000 cubic feet per second it begins 
to overflow its banks. Past records show that in recent years the dis¬ 
charge of the stream has frequently exceeded this amount, and hence 
the use of levees is recommended for the purpose of confining the flood 
waters to the vicinity of the main stream channel. 

THE PLAN RECOMMENDED. 

It is recommended that all the bottom land along both sides of the 
river between the State line and Emporia the value of which will 
justify the expense be protected by levees located approximately as 
shown on Plates II to XIV. The levees on the opposite sides of the 
river should be at least 900 feet apart at all points, leaving a clear 
channel of that width between them. The levees should be 8 feet 


[Bull. 198] 


24 


high, 6 feet wide on top, and have side slopes of 2 horizontal to 1 
vertical, making a base 38 feet wide, as shown in figure 2. 

Levees, to be effective in protecting the land against overflow, 
must be properly located, built in the right manner, and of sufficient 
dimensions to withstand the pressure of the water. Unless these 
requirements are strictly complied with, failure at a critical time is 
likely to occur. Many of the levees built on the Neosho River failed 
to protect the land because the work was not properly done. In 
many instances the landowner was not convinced in his own mind 
that a levee would afford protection and he tried it only as an experi¬ 
ment and in so doing desired to expend as little money as possible. 
Because of this feeling of doubt, the work was poorly done and the 
levee was not of sufficient height and cross section to afford protection 
during periods of high water. Levees should be built on correct 
principles in the beginning. It is a difficult matter to raise and 
enlarge them after they are once constructed, and if they are not 
built high enough and strong enough to withstand the flood and are 
overtopped by the water, or give way from the pressure, the pro¬ 



tection that is sought to be secured is lost and much of the work done 
is destroyed. If a ditch is not made large enough at first, it will afford 
some relief and it can be widened and deepened from time to time 
until it has sufficient capacity to drain the land, but if the water goes 
over a levee, or if it gives way during time of flood, the land sought 
to be protected is inundated and the crops destroyed. 

Another reason why the levees constructed along the Neosho River 
have given way is because they were placed too near the bank of the 
stream. The persons engaged in the work desired to inclose all the 
land possible and in so doing placed the levees so near the river bank 
that in places the bank caved and undermined them and they were 
carried away by the current. Where levees are placed on opposite 
sides of the stream it is necessary that they be far enough apart to 
give sufficient space for the volume of water that is to flow between 
them. If placed too near each other, they will restrict the width of 
the channel, cause the water to rise to a greater height, and thereby 
increase the danger of their being overtopped at times of high water. 

[Bull. 198] 











25 


GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR BUILDING THE LEVEES. 

Locution. —In no case should the levee be located within 200 feet of 
the bank of the stream, and it should, in a general way, be parallel 
with the stream, changing its direction when necessary in easy curves 
rather than by sharp angles. The ground should be carefully 
inspected to secure the best location. The location may be varied 
from the lines shown on the maps whenever, by so doing, advantage 
may be taken of higher and more stable ground. 

Preparation of base. —The base should be cleared of all vegetable 
growth, stumps, and trees, and then be plowed so as to permit the 
new material placed in the levee to unite with the ground underneath, 
in order to prevent seepage. Many failures have occurred because 
this precaution was not taken. 

Proper dimensions. —The height of the levee depends on the eleva¬ 
tion of the ground on which it is located, but in all cases it should be 
3 feet above the high-water mark of 1904 at that point. In some 
places this will require a levee 10 or 12 feet high, while in others it will 
be but 4 or 5, the average height throughout the valley being about 
8 feet. (See fig. 2.) The top width should be two times the square 
root of the height, which would make it about 6 feet on the average. 
The bank slopes should be 2 to 1 on each side. This will make a 
bank of ample cross section and will be sufficiently flat to t>e mowed 
with a mowing machine. It is believed that a levee of these dimen¬ 
sions, if well built, will protect the lands from overflow during floods 
like that which occurred in 1904. 

Ilow levees should be built. —The levees should be built of clean 
earth, free from vegetable matter, taken from the side of the levee 
next the river. The pit from which the earth is taken should have 
a side slope at least as flat as 1 to 1 on the side next the levee and 
should not be more than 6 feet deep. A berm or strip of land 10 feet 
wide from which no earth is taken should be left between the pit and 
the toe of the levee. The material can be most economically handled 
by a steam dredge of some type that will take the material from the 
pit and place it in the levee, completing the work at one operation. 
When material is handled in this way it requires no rolling nor tamp¬ 
ing to form an impervious embankment. When the required amount 
of material is in place, the top and sides of the embankment should 
be smoothed to an even surface and the whole planted in any grass 
adapted to the soil and climate. In many places Bermuda grass is 
extensively used for sodding levees, while in others a mixture of 
orchard grass and white clover does well. 

Interior drainage. —In order to provide for the removal of the sur¬ 
face water that falls on the protected lands within the inclosure of the 
levee, sluice gates must be constructed at suitable places. Every 

[Bull. 198] 


26 


opening in a levee, however well constructed and protected, is objec¬ 
tionable; hence the least number practicable should be used in pro¬ 
viding for the interior drainage. In many places several small drains 
may be collected in one and discharged through a single sluice. The 
small sluices should be made of vitrified sewer pipe with cemented 
j oints and finished with a stone or concrete heading at each end of the 
pipe. The end next the river should be fitted with a steel flap valve 
held in position by a wrought-iron band which encircles the pipe. 
This valve should be so constructed as to open readily to allow the 
water to pass through from within the inclosure and to close auto¬ 
matically against any water that may come against it from the river 
side. The outer end of this pipe should be protected by a grating of 
heavy rods, to prevent trash and sticks from getting under the valve. 
The end of the pipe on the inside of the levee should be provided with 
a sliding valve to be opened or closed by hand during times of high 
water, should the outer valve get out of order and fail to work. 
Where the drainage requires a sluice more than 18 inches in diameter, 
it should be made of concrete, and the ends should be fitted with 
gates and valves similar to those specified for the vitrified pipe. 
These sluices should be placed iif the ground before the levee is con¬ 
structed and great care should be exercised to see that they have a 
firm foundation and that the fresh earth is tamped carefully around 
them in building the levee. 

Maintenance .—After being built, the levee system should be placed 
under the special care and direction of some one charged with the duty 
of keeping it in perfect order. Although the improvement is of a per¬ 
manent nature and will require but little expense for maintenance, 
the works should be carefully inspected, especially just before periods 
of high water, and should be patrolled during such periods, to see that 
no damage remains unrepaired. 

The entire surface of the levee should be mowed at least twice each 
year, and the vegetable growth removed. As a result of this treat¬ 
ment they will soon become covered with grass, and yield a revenue 
in excess of the cost of mowing. 

OTHER NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS. 

In addition to the construction of the levee system, it is of the 
utmost importance that certain portions of the river channel, as indi¬ 
cated on the accompanying maps, should be straightened and the 
channel further improved by removing the logs, stumps, trees, and 
brush which now clog it and impede the flow of the water. 

The space between the levees and the river bank should be cleared 
absolutely. To get the maximum discharge the full area of the cross 
section must be free from obstructions. From one end of the river to 

[Bull. 198] 


27 


the other the banks are lined with oak, cottonwood, sycamore, with 
now and then walnut, pecan, elm, and maple. Some of these trees 
are valuable for lumber and the rest will make good cordwood or mine 
props. In places there is much worthless underbrush, but as a rule 
the timber will nearly, if not entirely, pay the cost of the clearing. 

To estimate the carrying capacity of a channel between levees, let 
it be supposed that 'the water rises above the top of the river banks 
between the levees to a height of 5 feet, as shown in figure 3. The 
water will not only be flowing in the main channel with a high velocity 
but will also be flowing with a considerable velocity over the broad 
flat banks between the levees on each side of the main channel. 
However, the conditions are so different in the main channel from 
what they are in the shallow stretches along the sides that the amount 
of water flowing in the two places must be calculated separately. So 
the channel will be considered as made of two parts, the central por¬ 
tion 240 feet wide and 30 feet deep, and another part made of the two 
sides put together, 650 feet wide and 5 feet deep. For both portions 
the slope is the same, 0.00024. For the main channel, the area is 
6,200 square feet, the wetted perimeter, 265 feet, the hydraulic radius 


____ 

HIGH WAT E R LINE 



BOTTOM OF RIVER 


Fig. 3. —Cross section of proposed improved and leveed channel of Neosho River. 

23.4 feet, and the coefficient C may be taken at 97. This gives a cal¬ 
culated velocity of 7.26 feet per second and a discharge of 45,000 cubic 
feet per second. The other channel has a width of 650 feet and a 
depth of 5 feet. Its hydraulic radius may be assumed as 5 feet, its 
area as 3,250 square feet, and the coefficient C as 70. Its calculated 
velocity is, then, 2.43 feet per second and its discharge 8,000 cubic 
feet per second. This added to the amount flowing in the main chan¬ 
nel gives a total discharge of 53,000 cubic feet per second. With the 
completion of the channel improvements recommended this discharge 
will be materially increased. 

If all the channel improvements previously recommended are care¬ 
fully carried out the levees will afford protection to the lands that are 
now overflowed, the improvement will be permanent in its character, 
and the annual cost of maintenance after the surface is set in grass 
will be small. The failures that have occurred throughout this val¬ 
ley have discouraged some of the people and created a distrust of 
levees as a means of protection. These failures, however, have been 
due to the manner in which the work was done and subsequently 
cared for, rather than to the kind of improvement adopted. 

[Bull. 198] 







28 


COST OF IMPROVEMENTS. 

A levee of the dimensions recommended, 8 feet high, 6 feet wide 
on top, and with side slopes of 2 to 1, will contain about 34,400 cubic 
yards per mile. 

The cost of such earthwork will vary slightly in different parts of 
the valley, but taken in large quantities so that the most improved 
machinery may be employed, it should not exceed 8 cents per cubic 
yard. At this price a mile of average levee will cost approximately 
$2,800. The cost for the right of way for these levees and the con¬ 
struction of return levees on some of the tributaries, the placing of 
sluice gates, and the digging of drainage ditches in certain places 
must be added to the cost of the work. In order to estimate the cost 
of protecting these lands by levees, and to determine whether or not 
it will pay as an economic proposition, the positions of the levees 
have been platted on the following series of maps, Plates II to XIV, 
covering the river valley from the State line to Emporia. From 
these maps the lengths of the levees have been estimated and also the 
amount and cost of other improvements needed, and these results are 
compared for each map with the amount of land which will be 
benefited. 

In the discussion which follows it is assumed that all the lands 
bordering on the Neosho River will be organized into drainage dis¬ 
tricts under the drainage law enacted by the legislature in 1905. If 
this is done and the several districts cooperate and the management 
is put under one head, economy in the administration will be effected 
and the work can be maintained in good condition at a minimum cost 
per annum. Another advantage that will accrue to the landowners 
by the organization of large drainage districts will be cheapness in 
construction. A large amount of work to be let under one contract 
will draw the attention of the best contracting firms in the country, 
equipped with the most modern machinery, who will be able to sub¬ 
mit a low price for doing the work. A saving will be effected also 
in the administrative expenses and better results secured than could 
be expected if the work were let in small quantities to numerous 
contractors. 

In an improvement of this kind the right of way will be acquired 
by the drainage district, but the title to the land occupied by the 
levees and to the strips between them and the river banks will remain 
in the present owner. The board of directors, however, should have 
such jurisdiction over this land as may be necessary to properly con¬ 
trol and maintain all drainage works. In the subsequent detailed 
estimates of cost the market value of the land has not been taken into 
consideration, but the damages which will ensue to the owners of the 
land by reason of the construction of the proposed improvements 

[Bull. 198] 


29 


have been estimated at $15 per acre, computed on all the land occu¬ 
pied by the levees and lying between the levees and the river channel. 

To provide for the interior drainage, open ditches must be dug to 
collect the water, and sluices must be provided to discharge it through 
the levees into the stream. These have been considered in the esti¬ 
mate of the cost and the liberal allowance of $1 per acre on all the 
land protected by the levees has been made for their construction. 
As many of these drainage ditches will be of special benefit to the 
land through which they pass, the owners thereof should contribute 
a large part of the cost of their construction. No separate amount 
has been estimated for cleaning the banks of the stream and the area 
between the levees, as the value of the fence posts, cordwood, and 
mine props which will be thus secured will pay a large portion of this 
expense. The ideal condition would be to have all logs, brush, and 
overhanging trees removed from the land between the levees and to 
have all branches hanging below the level of high water removed 
from the standing trees. This will increase the carrying capacity 
of the river and is a necessary adjunct of the levee system herein 
recommended. 

To further improve the channel certain snags, bars, and fallen 
trees should be removed. To do this a snag boat must be employed. 
From an inspection of the stream it is estimated that such a boat 
would make an average progress of 500 feet per day at a cost of $20 
for operating expenses. This is equivalent to a rate of 4 cents a foot 
or about $200 a mile, and on this basis an item is included in the 
detailed estimate of cost for each section of the river. 

In the estimates of cost nothing is allowed for expenses of admin¬ 
istration and organization, legal expenses, or engineering expenses. 
The amounts which will be necessary for these purposes are uncertain 
and will depend largely upon the procedure to be followed in carrying 
out the work. 


DETAILED MAPS AND ESTIMATES. 

Thirteen plates, II to XIV, show in considerable detail the valley 
and channel of the Neosho Iliver from the Kansas-Oklahoma State 
line to Emporia. Each plate includes a length of 10 or 12 miles of 
the valley. The maps show the land section lines, the public roads 
and bridges, the channels of the river and its tributaries, the towns, 
and the railroads along the river. The approximate boundaries of 
the area flooded in 1904 are shown by dotted lines, and the approxi¬ 
mate locations of the proposed levees are indicated. The elevation 
of the natural surface of the ground above sea level in feet is shown 
at frequent intervals along the section lines, and at occasional loca¬ 
tions the elevation of the high-water mark is stated. The places 

[Bull. 198] L 


30 


where the cross section of the river channel was measured are shown 
by the abbreviation C. S. These cross sections are numbered con¬ 
secutively beginning at the lower end of the valley. They are usually 
located at points where the river bed is crossed by section lines. 
Accompanying each plate there is a description of the proposed 
improvements embraced on the sheet and an estimate of their cost. 

CHETOPA SHEET (PLATE II.) 

This map shows the river and valley in the vicinity of Chetopa and 
includes a strip of country 9 miles long. This is the widest portion 
of the river channel within the State. Three important tributaries, 
Fly Creek, Cherry Creek, and Labette Creek, are shown. The valley 
is from 3 to 4^ miles wide and 20,200 acres were flooded during the 
high water of 1904. The Missouri Pacific Railroad crosses the river 
just above Chetopa, running east about 1J miles and thence north¬ 
east about 31 miles to the point were it leaves the valley. The length 
of the river channel from the north line of the map to the State line is 
14.2 miles, and to the lower end of the bend just below the State line, 
16.1 miles. The fall in 16.1 miles is 17.5 feet, which gives 1.09 
feet per mile. By cutting the bends as indicated on the map this 
distance can be shortened to 11.5 miles and the fall increased to 1.52 
feet per mile. The average cross-sectional area of this part of the 
stream is 5,400 square feet. By the formulas, 

v = J f X li f and Q = av, 

the discharge of the river is found to be 28,900 cubic feet per second, as 
it now runs when flowing bank full. With the cuts made as indicated, 
this discharge would be increased to 34,100 cubic feet per second, 
making an increase of 5,200 cubic feet per second. To make these 
cuts would require the construction of 7,500 linear feet of canal of 
the same cross section as the river, requiring the excavation of 1,500,- 
000 cubic yards of material. Since the work is in a wide and deep 
channel and the dirt would have to be taken back 200 feet or more, 
it would cost at least 18 cents per cubic yard, and probably as much 
as 20 or 25 cents, to handle it. At the minimum estimate of 18 
cents the cost of making these three cut-offs would be $270,000. This 
cost is so great that the construction of these cut-offs can not be 
recommended. As shown on the map, 37.87 miles of levees are 
required to protect the land. With an average height of 8 feet, with 
bank slopes 2 to 1, a 6-foot crown, as described on pages 25 and 26, such 
levees will cost about $2,800 per mile. These levees should be built 
in about the position shown on the map, and return levees will be 
required on Fly, Labette, and Cherry creeks in addition to the main 

[Buli. 198] 



31 


levees on both the east and west banks of the river. The length of 
the levees required and the estimated cost are as follows: 


Construction of new levees, at $2,800 per mile: 


West bank river. 


9. 75 

East bank river.. 


10. 89 

Fly Creek..._•. 


6. 63 

Labette Creek. 


1. 70 

Cherry Creek.. 


8. 90 


Total. . .do 

Right of way and clearing, at $15 per acre. 

Snag boat, 150 days, at $20 per day. 

Interior drainage and small sluices, at $1 per acre . 


37. 87=$106, 036 

. 14,550 

. 3,000 

. 20,200 


Total cost of improvement on Plate II 


143,786 


OSWEGO SHEET (PLATE III). 

Plate III includes 20.6 miles of river channel, most of which lies in 
Labette County. Lightning Creek is the principal tributary, empty¬ 
ing into the river east of Oswego. For miles at the upper part of 
this section the valley is narrow, while the lower portion is wide. 
Two railroads cross the bottoms—the St. Louis and San Francisco 
east of Oswego, and the Mineral branch of the Missouri, Kansas and 
Texas Railway 5 miles north of Oswego. There are two highway 
bridges at Oswego and one at Montana. 

From cross section 10 on the south to cross section 23a at the 
north the distance by the river is 20.6 miles; to cross section 23c 
the distance is 21.5 miles. The sharpest bends are the Harrison 
bend, just south of Oswego, and the Goose Neck bend, near the 
north line. These are the only bends which might be cut. The 
Harrison bend could be cut off with 620 feet of new channel. If 
this were not made the same size as the river it would retard the 
flow in times of flood. Such a channel would cost about $30 per 
linear foot, making the cost of 620 feet $18,600. In addition to this, 
a levee 2,000 feet long would have to be built, filling the river bed in 
two places. This would increase the cost to about $20,000. The 
slight increase gained in the carrying capacity of the channel does 
not justify this expense. 

Levees built on the lines shown on Plate III Avill afford adequate 
protection from flood with the smallest possible cost. The lengths 
of the different levees required and their estimated cost are as 
follows: 

Construction of new levees, at $2,800 per mile: 

West bank river.miles 

East bank river. do.. 

Cherry Creek....do.. 

[Bull. 198] 


.. 13.83 
„ 17.71 
.. 1.89. 





















32 


Construction of new levees, at $2,800 per mile—Cont’d. 

Lightning Creek.miles.. 6. 34 

Cut-off.do.... 4.26 

Total.do.... 44.03=1123,284 

Right of way and clearing, at $15 per acre. 19, 800 

Snag boat, 217 days, at $20 per day... 4, 340 

Interior drainage and small sluices, at $1 per acre. 16, 500 

5 large sluice gates, at $1,000 each.. 5, 000 

Total cost of improvement on Plate III. 168, 924 

ISLAND SHEET (PLATE iv). 

Plate IV, which includes the greater portion of the river known 
as the island district, presents the greatest difficulty. The 4 miles 
on the north are very crooked. The bed of the river is of smaller 
cross section than it is farther up the stream. In addition to the 
river there is an auxiliary channel known as the cut-off. The com¬ 
bined area of the cross section of river and cut-off is about the same 
size as the average cross section of the river. The fall in this por¬ 
tion of the river is very small. From cross section 31, just below 
the mouth of the cut-off, to cross section 35 the distance by river 
is 13.2 miles. The difference in elevation is 6.8 feet, giving a fall 
per mile of 0.52 foot. This gives a discharge by the main river of 
12,630 second-feet. The cut-off is much shorter, and hence has a 
greater fall per unit of length. From the upper end to the mouth of 
the cut-off the distance is 6.10 miles. The fall is 9.9 feet, or 1.62 
feet per mile. This produces a discharge of 11,810 second-feet. 
The total amount discharged, then, by both river and cut-off when 
they are bank full is 24,440 second-feet. This is 5,500 second-feet 
below the average. 

By making the cuts shown on the map as 1, 2, 3, and 4, the dis¬ 
tance between cross sections 31 and 35 may be reduced from 13.2 
miles to 7.6 miles. This greater fall increases the discharge in the 
main river channel from 12,630 to 16,650 second-feet, which makes 
the total discharge 28,460 second-feet. 

That portion of the river in Neosho County, which includes the 
island and cut-off, is already leveed in many places. As it has been 
shown that cutting the bends would not greatly increase the dis¬ 
charge, only cut No. 3, which lies between cross sections 32 and 33, 
is recommended. At this place a cut of 250 feet will save 3.31 
miles, and while the gain in fall is not large, the discharge will be 
increased 1,910 second-feet. The cut would cost about $7,000. 
The old channel of the river would have to be filled in two places 
and the levee built across as indicated. Here is a case where a cut 
is better and cheaper than a levee. Cuts 1, 2, and 4 are longer, 
and combined gain only 2,110 second-feet in discharge. They 

[Bull. 198] 














/ 


U S. Dept, of Agr., Bui. 198, Office of Expt. Stations. 


Drain. Invest. 


T.3 5 S. 


T.34S. 





Plate II. 

























































































































































































































i 






■ 


- 

, f 
















» 


. 












# v 




■». 


t 














' 

■■ : . 






a • : . | -. AJ , 

’ • : . : • ' >’ . *' r : 

- '• ^ 

' V ■ * 7 

















'■ ■ 

! 

*-■ 

• ' 

• - 

V 

; 
























' 

' 

. 








■; . 

/• '■ 'u 

■ 



. ' ."1 ; 













\ ; 










. 




i . 




• ‘'' ; 

* 

=1 •* v' * 







. 























U. S. Dept. of Agr., Bui. 198, Office of Expt. Stations. Drain. Invest. 


Plate III. 



Ql 

cS" 

<5 

Co 


o' 

Q 

s 

& 






<0 


o 


>3 

Co 

O 

\ 


^3 

>1 



o 

°1 

\ 


Co 


Q 


o 


> 


Q. 


o* 

0 

cS* 


Co 


\ 



> 

o 



(/) 

o 




Co 



































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































U. S. Dept, of Agr.j Bui. 198, Office of Expt. Stations. 


Drain. Invest. 


Plate IV 



8538 


84*7 
84 7 / 


[84/6 


85 6S 
| as 9.?. 


8374 7904 


8373 






























































































































































































































U. S. Dept. of Agr., Bui. 1 98, Office of Expt. Stations. Drain. Invest 


Plate V. 


tts 
\ 
C/s' 

5 ‘ 





V* 


Co 


s 

£. 

X 

O 



Co 


o 


Cfc 

c5* 

cS 


ct> 



nT 


-tv 

\ 

C/> 


O 

«> 





O' 






Co 




ft) 



ft> 



(s, 





R.20E 


R.2IE. 


R.I9E 





























































































































































































































































































33 


would cost upward of $55,000, which is a great deal more than 
levees around the bends will cost. 

All through Neosho County levees have been built alon» the 
river. Certain portions of these levees may be enlarged and”used 
in the new system. Other parts will have to be moved back or 
abandoned. The old levees have an average top width or crown of 
5 feet, are 5 feet high, and have side slopes of U to 1. This makes 
the yardage per linear foot 2.3 instead of the 6.5 in the new levees 
Where the old levees are in the proper position their enlargement 
will be quite a saving in the cost of construction. 

In order to protect the bottom land on Plate IV, 34.11 miles of 
new levee must be built and 11.75 miles of old levee enlarged, at the 
following cost: * 

Construction of new levees, at $2,800 per mile: 

East bank river...miles.. 14. 36 

West bank river.do 7 @4 

Hickory Creek.do.... 6.82 

Millers Branch. do 1 49 

cm-off. l:tl 


Total.do_ 

Enlargement of old levee, at $1,800 per mile: 

East bank river.miles. 

West bank river.do_ 

Millers Branch. .do_ 

Cut-off... do_ 

Total.do_ 

Right of way and clearing, at $15 per acre. 

Snag boat, 284 days, at $20 per day. 


Interior drainage and small sluices, at $1 per acre 

Proposed cut. 

1 large sluice gate. 


34.11 =$95, 508 


3.06 

2.93 

.76 

5.00 

11.75 21,150 - 

. 21,000 

. 5,680 

. 18,000 

. 7,000 

. 1,500 


Total cost of improvement on Plate IV. 169, 838 

ST. PAUL SHEET (PLATE v). 

Plate V shows 20.82 miles of river, most of which has been leveed. 
This portion of the stream, while crooked, has no long bends that it 
would be practicable to cut. 

On Plate V levees only are recommended. Because of their poor 
location the old levees can be used in but few places, and new*ones 
will have to be built in order to secure the necessary area of cross 
section of channel to take care of flood waters. In order to get the 
maximum velocity of current in the water confined by the levees 
they should be as nearly as practicable at equal distances from the 
banks of the stream. When so placed they accomplish the desired 
end and are less liable to damage by erosion and caving. In no case 
should a levee be closer than 200 feet to the bank of the river. 

30023—Bull. 198—08-3 






















34 


Levees will be required on the upper portion of the cut-off, on the 
two creeks entering the cut-off at its head, on Walnut and Downey 
creeks, on Four-mile Creek, and on the river. The length of these 
levees and their estimated cost are as follows: 

Construction of new levees, at $2,800 per mile: 


West bank river...miles.. 5. 68 

East bank river.do- 12. 78 

Cut-off..do- 1.04 

Creeks.do-10.51 


Total.*.do_30.01=184,028 

Enlargement of old levees, at $1,800 per mile: 

East bank river.miles.. 3.41 

West bank river.do- 3.13 

Creeks.do- 5.87 


Total.do.... 12.41 22,338 

Eight of way and clearing, at $15 per acre. 18,150 

Snag boat, 220 days, at $20 per day. 4,400 

Interior drainage and small sluices, at $1 per acre. 12, 600 

Total cost of improvement on Plate V. 141, 516 


ERIE SHEET (PLATE Vi). 

The river as shown on Plate VI is reasonably straight. There is 
one long, narrow bend just above Shaw that will be considered with 
a view to cutting. At the best place a cut of 750 feet will save 6,500 
feet on the length of the stream. From cross section 44 to cross 
section 53 the distance by river is 14.45 miles. There are 19.20 feet 
of fall, 15.90 feet of which is effective. The old Austin dam takes up 
3.30 feet of the fall. The effective fall per mile is 1.10 feet. With 
this fall the discharge would be 30,920 second-feet. By making the 
cut, thus shortening the distance, the fall is increased to 1.20 feet per 
mile. This fall permits a discharge of 32,290 second-feet. The cost 
of a cut to permit this discharge would be upward of $20,000, and 
would save but about $3,000 worth of levee. Hence this cut is not 
recommended. The old Austin dam is of no use, but is a serious 
obstruction and should be removed. This will cost $600. 

The valley is narrow in several places on this sheet, so the area pro¬ 
tected is relatively small. Many of the old levees are too near the 
stream to be enlarged and form a part of the new system. The 
levees which will be required and their cost are as follows: 

Construction of new levees, at $2,800 per mile; 

East bank river.miles.. 11.13 

West bank river.do_ 3.41 

Creeks.do_ 5.77 

Total 


[Bull. 198] 


do.... 20.31=$56, 868 























35 


Enlargement of old levees, at $1,800 per mile: 

East bank river..miles.. 0. 29 

West bank river.do_ 2.37 

Creeks.do_ 3.31 


Total.do_ 5.97 $10,746 

Right of way and clearing, at $15 per acre.. 17, 250 

Snag boat, 155 days, at $20 per day. 3,100 

Interior drainage and small sluices, at $1 per acre. 10, 400 

Removing Austin dam. 600 

1 large sluice gate.. 1,000 


Total cost of improvement on Plate VI. 99, 964 


CHANUTE SHEET (PLATE VIl). 

This plate shows 19.13 miles* of river, most of which lies between 
Chanute and Humboldt. Cross section 59 is on the line between 
Neosho and Allen counties. Above this line very little levee work 
has been done. 

As this portion of the river has no bends that it would be an advan¬ 
tage to cut, levees only must be used. As nearly all of the old levees 
have been destroyed, practically a new system will be required. 
These will be placed 900 feet apart and of the cross section previously 
described. Both sides of the river must be leveed in places, and 
levees must be run back on Village Creek and Owl Creek. The 
levees required, and their cost, are as follows: 

Construction of new levees at $2,800 per mile: 


East bank river.miles.. 8.86 

West bank river.do-12.00 

Creeks.do- 3.84 


Total.do_ 24.70=$69,160 

Enlargement of old levees at $1,800 per mile: 

West bank river.do- 1.84 

Creeks.do- 3.22 


Total.do- 5.06 9,108 

Right of way and clearing at $15 per acre. 18, 825 

Snag boat, 202 days, at $20 per day.* 4,040 

Interior drainage and small sluices at $1 per acre... 12,700 

2 large sluice gates. 4,000 


Total cost of improvement on Plate VII. 117,833 


The removal of the mill dam at Humboldt would be beneficial, 
but as it is used for water power to run a mill an estimate can not be 
given as to its value and the cost of its removal. 

HUMBOLDT SHEET (PLATE VIIl). 

This plate shows 9.22 miles of river between Humboldt and Iola. 
This part of the river is nearly straight and has no creeks emptying 

[Bull. 198] 































36 


into it. The bottoms are very narrow, in few places exceeding a 
mile in width. The cost of the proposed levees is as follows: 

Construction of new levees at $2 800 per mile: 

East ban k river.mi les.. 7.48 

West bank river.do- 7. 29 


Total.do.... 14.77=141,356 

Right of way and clearing at $15 per acre. 9, 960 

Snag boat, 97 days, at $20 per day. 1, 940 

Interior drainage and small sluices at $1 per acre. 4,400 

Total cost of improvement on Plate VIII. 57, 656 

IOLA SHEET (PLATE IX). 


The difficulties presented by this section of the stream are peculiar 
must be considered carefully. The length of the river as shown 
the map is 18 miles. The fall is 25.5 feet, which makes a unit fall 
1 .42 feet. The discharge of the present channel when bank full is 
>00 second-feet. By cleaning out snags and obstructions from 
>: bed of the river the capacity may be increased to 35,000 second- 
fect. • 

ertain portions of the river on this plate are very crooked. It is 
question whether cuts can be made that will increase the carrying 
>acity of the river materially and save in the cost of levees. Three 
ni:s could be made which would shorten the river 3.15 miles and 
i -ease the discharge 3,500 second-feet. The cost of the three cuts 
a uld approximate $45,000. With cuts, 4.31 miles of levees are 
(led between cross section 75 and cross section 78. The cost of 
cuts and levees is $56,868, the cost of the levees being $11,868. With¬ 
out cuts the same improvement can be secured with 5.44 miles of 
levee, at a cost of $14,979, and with about 90 acres of right of way, at 
$15, making a sum total for longer levees of $16,329, showing a saving 
of $40,000 if levees alone are used. 

Levees placed 850 feet apart will give a channel of the proper 
size. On the east side of the river two large sluice gates will be 
needed to afford outlet for creeks, and on the west side one gate will 
be required. The cost of the levees required is as follows: 


Construction of new levees, at $2,800 per mile: 


East bank river...miles.. 

West bank river...do... 

Total.do... 


Right of way and clearing, at $15 per acre ...._ 

Snag boat, 190 days, at $20 per day. 

Interior drainage and small sluices, at $1 per acre 
3 large sluice gates. 


13. 02 
6. 53 


19. 55=$54, 740 

. 24,000 

... i. 3, 800 

. 7,600 

. 4,000 


Total cost of improvement on Plate IX 
[Bull. 198] 


94,140 




















U. S. Dept, of Agr., Bui. 198, Office of Expt. Stations. 


Drain. Invest. 


Plate VI. 



p03.8 


< 900.0 


R.R. 90i 


ROL.LIN 
_ IJJJ 


iJJJ 


8978 


1 894.6 


893 . 4 * 


89/ 8 


,836 7 


906 8 


8330 


930.8 


ms 

A93.9 8 <r 


|{W7.4 


MIS". 




jjjj 

jjjj 

jjjj 

jjjj 

■JJJ2J 

JJJJ 

JJJJ 


\f.3803 

J 


s sac 


[8839 


■&LA 





















































































































































































































































































































































































U. S. Dept, of Agr., Bui. 198, Office of Expt. Stations. 


Drain. Invest. 


Plate VII. 



9S6.3 

933.5 


*2.7 9 




919 0 


llli 

LLLj 


530.3 


916 0' 


LLL 

LLL 

LLL 


JZ3 0 


HWSZ&i 


929 ! 


9/S 4 


H. W 9311 


3 IS 7 


^CLLL 

^^Illll 

^LLLLL; 

LCfeLLLL 

^LLl^LL 

lLLLLLL 1 

LLLLLLL! 

LLLLLLL, 

LLLLLLL 1 

LLLLLLL! 


314 9 


< 52 '. 0.0 


9/4.8 


L L 1 949 7 _; £. 

LLLLL*. 
LLLLL _! 
LLLLLC 
LLLLL u 
LLLLL_ 


St l \t wag'd 


914 5 


ieios 


306 4 


903.5 

308.9 


\3C9S 


93 4. 7 




[954 i 


305.1 


-5080 

302.6 


9 or / 


9078 


908.5 


.9/60 


.QSJSO 

963.4 


■9 04 Or 












































































































































































































































































































































































































' • 























































U S. Dept, of Agr., Bui. 198, Office of Expt. Station* 


Drain. Invest. 


S3 
ft 

s 

i! S3 
§; ft' 


1° 

ft 

-V 

-o 

c: 


'ft 

5 


>3 ft 

O 

Os 

§. 

5 

k 

o> 

ft 

0) 


r 

□ 

H 

CO 

i 

m 

n 

H 


cv 

ft 

ft 

S' 

ft 

ft' 

\ 

ft 

ft: 

ft 

is 

0) 


1 

c 

2 -JJ 

03 r- 

o r 


> 

H 

m 


1 

! * 

1 

l_ 

LEGEND 

5 

4 

\ 

2 

~i 

i 

1 

i 

1 

1 7 

1 

1 

8 

9 

i0 

V li 

\ 

\ 

\ 

1 

1 

1 

18 

1 

I 

17 

16 

15 

- / 
y 
/ 

y 

/ 

l 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

20 

21 

22 

23 

1-r 

1 

1 

30 

1 

1 

l 

29 

28 

27 

26 j 

1 

1 

31 

1 

32 

i 

1 

i 

33 

1 

CO 

1 

! u 

35 


IZ 


13 


Y 


\ 


\ 


\ 


\24 
\ 



25 


36 


Plate VII! 



T.25S 





















































































































































. 
















































» 


















































































































































U. S. Dept, of Agr., Bui. 198, Office of Expt. Stations. 


Drain. Invest. 


Plate IX. 



R. 17 E. 


R.18 E. 

















































































































































































37 


NEOSHO FALLS SHEET (PLATE x). 

The part of the river shown on this map has several important 
tributary streams. Although there are several bends, none of them 
are short enough to be cut to advantage. Protection from flood must 
be secured wholly by levees placed 850 feet apart, as shown on the 
map. In addition to the levees on the river Spring Creek, Crooked 
Creek, Big Creek, and Turkey Creek will require levees. The lengths 
of these levees, with their estimated cost, are as follows: 


Construction of new levees, at $2,800 per mile: 

East bank river.miles. 13 64 

West bank river.do 45 43 

Spring Creek.... .do... 7 . 67 

Crooked Creek.do... 3 . 50 

Big Creek..do... 1.80 

Turkey Creek...do... 1.61 

Total .do... 43.65=$122,220 

Eight of way and clearing, at $15 per acre. 17, 625 

Snag boat, 187 days, at $20 per day... 3, 740 

Interior drainage and small sluices, at $1 per acre. 16,100 

4 large sluice gates. 000 

Total cost of improvement on Plate X. 165, 685 


At Neosho Falls a mill dam obstructs the river to some extent 
and should be removed. The removal would necessitate arrange¬ 
ments with the mill owners; hence no estimate can be placed on this 

item. 

BURLINGTON SHEET (PLATE Xl). 


The part of the river on Plate XI is very crooked in places, but 
the bends are of such a nature that cuts would be too expensive to 
be constructed. In order to secure protection at time of extreme 
high water the principal creeks, as well as the river, must be leveed. 
On this map levees of considerable length will be required on Long 
Creek, Wolf Creek, and Big Creek. 

The different levees required, with their length and estimated cost, 
are as follows: 


Construction of new levees, at $2,800 per mile: 


East bank river. 

.miles. 

. 14.39 

West bank river. 

. .do... 

.. 7 . 90 

Big Creek. 

. .do... 

. 4.73 

Long Creek. 


. 5.59 

Wolf Creek. 

..do... 

. 5.49 

Total. 


. 38.10=$106, 680 

Right of way and clearing, at $15 per acre.... 


. 17,400 

Snag boat, 180 days, at $20 per day. 


. 3,600 

Interior drainage and small sluices, at $1 per acre.... 

. 12,000 

Total cost of improvement on Plate XI. 


. 139,680 


[Bull. 198] 





























38 


STRAWN SHEET (PLATE XIl). 

This portion of the river has one bend in the vicinity of Strawn 
that should be cut. By the present course of the river the distance 
from cross section 96 to cross section 103 is 16.15 miles. The fall 
in this distance is 19 feet, giving a unit fall of 1.18 feet per mile. 

If the bend near Strawn were cut as indicated, the length of the 
river would be shortened 2.53 miles and the fall increased to 1.40 
feet per mile. The cut and the levee across the river would be 
cheaper than a levee around the bend. The cut would cost about 
$5,100, and the levee across the old channels $900, making a total 
of $6,000 for cut and levee. A levee around the bend would be 
2.37 miles long, and would cost $6,526, which shows a considerable 
saving in favor of a cut. Levees would be required on both banks 
of the river and on Hickory Creek and Otter Creek. t 

The length and estimated cost of these levees are as follows: 

Construction of new levees, at $2,800 per mile: 


East bank river.miles.. 11.42 

West bank river.do— 12. 40 

Otter Creek..do- 3. 22 

Hickory Creek.do- 1.32 


Total..do.... 28.36=179,408 

Right of way and clearing, at $15 per acre. 15,150 

Snag boat, 144 days, at $20 per day. 2, 880 

Interior drainage and small sluices, at $1 per acre. 8, 300 

1 cut and levee. 6, 000 


Total cost of improvement on Plate XII. Ill, 738 


HARTFORD SHEET (PLATE XIIl). 

Plate XIII is the last map of the Neosho River below its junction 
with the Cottonwood. Above Hartford the bottom lands become 
wide and the damage from overflow great, due largely to the Cotton¬ 
wood River, which empties into the Neosho a few miles above. 

The best way to secure protection from flood in this portion of the 
valley is by the construction of levees. There are no bends on Plate 
XIII that can be cut to advantage. It has been shown that unless a 
cut saves a great deal in the length of levees required it does not pay 
to make it. The proposed levees on this map are placed to secure 
the best practical enlargement of the channel, to enable it to take 
care of flood water. 


[Bull. 198] 














39 


The length of levees required and their estimated cost are as 


follows: 

Construction of new levees, at $2,800 per mile: 

East bank river.miles.. 15.44 

West bank river.do_12. 59 

Creeks.do_ 4.07 


Total.‘.do_ 32.10=189,880 

Right of way and clearing, at $15 per acre. 19, 725 

Snag boat, 187 days, at $20 per day... 3, 740 

Interior drainage and smalksluices, at $1 per acre... 10, 600 

2 large sluices, at $1,000 each.. 2,000 


Total cost of improvement on Plate XIII. 125, 945 


EMPORIA SHEET (PLATE XIV). 

This map shows both the Neosho River and its principal tributary 
stream, the Cottonwood River. Above the point of junction the 
Cottonwood River is the larger stream and is very similar to the 
Neosho in general characteristics. The bottom lands are rich and 
are nearly all under cultivation, but are devastated by floods as often 
as on the Neosho. The run-off of the Cottonwood is quite large, 
because a large part of its watershed is hilly pasture land, which does 
not absorb much rainfall. The stream itself is crooked, with wooded 
banks, and has in many places riffles over a permanent rock-bottom 
bed. 

The discharges of the Cottonwood and the upper Neosho are about 
in the ratio of 5 to 3. If the Cottonwood rises while the Neosho is 
bank full it has no outlet and is thrown out of its banks until the 
accumulation of head becomes great enough to take possession of the 
Neosho channel. In this event the upper Neosho is thrown out of its 
banks and the bottom lands along it are flooded, as well as a large 
part of the country between the Neosho and the Cottonwood. When 
the Cottonwood River is bank full a rise in the upper Neosho causes 
floods in both rivers, because of the inability of the main Neosho chan¬ 
nel to carry off the water. 

Various remedies have been suggested to prevent the overflow in 
the vicinity of the junction of the two rivers. Before the plan which 
is here recommended for the prevention of floods in this district is 
taken up, the most important of the other plans proposed will be 
discussed. 

- The landowners have given tjie matter of floods a great deal of 
attention. The general impression is that a ditch cut from the 
Cottonwood to the main Neosho River, in the position shown approx¬ 
imately by suggested cut on Plate XIV, will do away with serious 
flood damage. Such a canal would be about 3 miles long and would 

[Bull. 198] 













40 


have an effective fall of about 5 feet to the mile. However, a canal 
of this kind, made 60 feet wide on top and 40 feet wide on the bottom, 
with a depth of 20 feet, would carry but 9,400 second-feet of water. 
The sum of the discharges of the present channel when bank full, 
which is 21,500 second-feet, and of the canal, which is 9,400 second- 
feet, is 30,900 second-feet/ With 40,000 second-feet as the maximum 
discharge, there is still nearly one-fourth of all water to overflow and 
the upper Neosho to cause damage as before, both at the junction 
point and at the lower end of the canal. Such an improvement, 
while it would prevent some small overflow, would cost nearly 
$90,000. Levees would have to be built also on the canal and on the 
river to get protection of any real value. 

The plan here recommended is more effective, because it provides 
for enlarging the channels of both the Cottonwood River and the 
upper Neosho by the construction of levees, so that each stream may 
carry the water that will be necessary in time of flood, and that the 
channel of the main Neosho River be enlarged sufficiently to carry 
the water of both of these streams. Such improvement will be less 
expensive and will afford absolute protection. The railroads will, it 
is true, be compelled to put other spans in their bridges, and the 
county bridges will have to be lengthened to provide adequate open¬ 
ings for a high stage of river. 

Levees should be built along the lines indicated on the main Neosho 
River 850 feet apart. On the Cottonwood the levees should be built 
approximately on the lines indicated, with 750 feet between them, or 
between the levee and the opposite high bank. On the upper Neosho 
the levees should be 650 feet apart. All levees will be of the same 
cross section as those on the main river, having an average height of 
8 feet and a base width of 38 feet. 

The length and the estimated cost of these levees are as follows: 


Construction of new levees, at $2,800 per mile; 

East'bank main Neosho River.miles.. 0.80 

West bank main Neosho River...do_ 3.12 

South bank upper Neosho River.do_10. 23 

North bank Cottonwood River.'.. .do.... 8.47 

South bank Cottonwood River.;. .do_ 7.19 

Creeks.do.95 


Total........ 1.. .do.... 30. 76=$86,128 

Right of way and clearing, at $15 per acre. 24, 000 

Snag boat, 391 days, at $20 per day. 7, 820 

Interior drainage and small sluices, at $1 per acre... 12, 400 

1 large sluice gate... 900 


Total cost of improvement on Plate XIV... 131, 248 

[Bull. 198] 



















Small figures denote elevations Pj A T F" Y 

above sea level. 373.5 A 

wvwww indicates proposed levees NEOSHO FALLS SHEET 


U. S. Dept, of Agr.f Bui. 198, Office of Expt. Stations. 


Drain. Invest. 


Plate X. 



388 / 
■9 9 UK 

'f>88Z 


3900 


376 4 


\ 385-9 


3800 


960J 


3113 


3 n z 


976.3- 

31Z.5 


^968.4 


r^1 i h’&ts 
r*~n Jh'Sw 

hTTi 

>n 97 f1 hyn 


;<*> j” 
r 2rM* 

pj 

£ 

O'* 

5.4’<s 

ov, 

OV. . 

■* i . 

**v 1 

s 

98Z.3 /j 

4 


96GS 
984 4^ 




982$ 1 



c 

r»j 

5 

1 

- 

§ 5 5 j 

§«$£>*> 
'V CTj O'; 

\ i 

r" 6 
*, 

12 . 

'''' 

1 


T. 23 S. 



































































































































































V 




-1 

s 

o 






o s 

e> 

.»> 

k ic> 





X 

as 1 r » 






L,._. 






U S. Dept, of Agr., Bui. 198, Office of Expt. Stations. 


Drain. Invest. 


Plate XI 



// w/o/z. ^ 


/O 08 / 


/OO 76 


/004 2 


/OO* 6 


IOOZ.O 


H. W/OO/2 


/ 0 / 0.6 


ARH.W 9914- + 













































































































































































































3 * 


































A 







U. S. Dept, of Agr., Bui. 198, Office of Expt. Stations. 


Drain. Invest. 


Plate XII 



R. 14 E. 


R.I5 E. 





















































































































































































































































U S. Dept, of Agr., Bui. 198, Office of Expt. Stations. 


Drain. Invest. 


Plate XIII. 



1707/./ 


10710 


\/Q7Q 


5- • «> C 

I S. S rni 

O 5 Q\./063 


/064-.I 


i'054.2* 


/OS8 Z 


WwyiA, 


/OS8 0 


\-/0S9.f «o 


rl/o5(> \ 

LI- ,053 H 


10689 


{hjjJ 5jjjjj_iT 

o> JJJJJJJJJ-J! 


1059 9 




'k24S ! 


1049 


>04& 8 


\ 1046 8 


’£4 56 


/043 S 


rO 42 s 


T.ZO s. 






































































































































































































































































































































p 








Small finures denote elevations PLATE XIV 

above sea level. 1092.6 

wtototo indicates proposed levees EM POR I A SH E. E."T 


U S. Dept, of Agr., Bui. 198, Office of Expt. Stations. 


Drain. Invest. 


Plate XIV 



I I l II l 

irmi 

mm 

mnin 

Qi~n~n 

hTn-n 


\IOfi 3 


11 I I I I I I I I I I I 

iinTjnimi 
ni-rriTj iiimij 
ijljljljljljljtljljljlHIjj 

niiiiihmiii 

rnnnnnjrnnnnni 

n~i~inn~i~ihnnnmii 


139 e. 2 H 


13861 




j losro 


il-TTIT 

rn~n~n 

mm 

imiii 


mini 

mini 


[1085 6 




1035.1 


1030 4- 


/on f 


/CSC-, 


> / P 7 /-4- 


H.W. 

toess 


>083-1 


1036 4 


1036.6 


1033. / 


1088 3 
^10828 


1084- Z H W- 


1090-0 


'58 76 rUS 




19 S 






















































































































































































































































































rrr rftm m 

■ 



' 











' 

. 
















































































41 


SUMMARY OF TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS. 


The following table summarizes the expenditures for the separate 
sheets previously given: 


Summary'of total estimated costs. 


Name of 
plate. 

Num¬ 
ber of 
plate. 

New levees to 
be constructed. 

Old levees to 
be enlarged. 

Cost of 
right 
of way. 

Cost 

of 

clean¬ 

ing 

chan¬ 

nel 

with 

snag 

boat. 

Cost of 
interior 
drain¬ 
age and 
small 
sluices. 

Cost 

of 

other 

im¬ 

prove¬ 

ments. 

Total 

cost. 

Cost 

per 

acre of 
land 
pro¬ 
tected. 

Length. 

Cost. 

Length. 

Cost. 

Chetopa.'. 

Oswego. 

Island. 

St. Paul. 

Erie. 

Chanute. 

Humboldt... 

Iola. 

Neosho Falls. 
Burlington... 

Strawn. 

Hartford. 

Emporia. 

Total... 

II 

III 

IV 
V 

VI 

VII 

VIII 

IX 

X 

XI 

XU 

XIII 

XIV 

Miles. 
37.87 
44.03 
34.11 
30.01 
20.31 
24.70 
14.77 
19.55 
43.65 

38.10 
28.36 

32.10 
30.76 

$106,036 
123,284 
95,508 
84,028 
56,868 
69,160 
41,356 
54, 740 
122,220 
106,680 
79,408 
89,880 
86,128 

Miles. 

ii.75 

12.41 

5.97 

5.06 

$21,150 
22,338 
10,746 
9,108 

$14,550 
19,800 
21,000 

18.150 
17,250 
18,825 

9,960 
24,000 
17,625 
17, 400 

15.150 
19,725 
24,000 

$3,000 
4,340 
5,680 
4,400 
3,100 
4,040 
1,940 
3,800 
3,740 
3,600 
2,880 
3,740 
7,820 

$20,200 
16, .500 
18,000 
12,600 

10.400 
12,700 

4,400 
7,600 
16,100 
12,000 
8,300 
10,600 

12.400 

$5,000 

8,500 

1,600 

4,000 

4,000 

6,000 

6,000 

2,000 

900 

$143,786 
168,924 
169,838 
141,516 
99,964 
117,833 
57,656 
94,140 
165,685 
139,680 
111, 738 
125,945 
131,248 

$7.12 
10,24 
9.44 
11.23 
9.61 
9.28 
13.10 
12.38 
10.29 
11.64 
13.46 
11.88 
10.58 


398.32 

1,115,296 

35.19 

63,342 

237,435 

52,080 

161,800 

38,000 

1,667,953 


The footings of the table show^ that the total length of new levees 
recommended is approximately 398 miles, costing about $1,115,000. 
It is proposed to enlarge some 35 miles of old levees at a cost of about 
$63,000. Approximately 15,800 acres will be required for the right of 
way for the levees and for the improved clear channel at a cost of 
$237,000. The cost of clearing obstructions from 247 miles of river 
channel is estimated at $52,000. The amount of land to be protected 
from floods by these proposed improvements is 161,800 acres, for 
which $ 1 per acre is allowed for providing the necessary internal ditch¬ 
ing and small sluices through the levees. The cost of all other items 
recommended to be embraced in the scheme of improvements, includ¬ 
ing large sluice gates, is $38,000, making a total estimated cost of 
$1,667,953. 

In arriving at this total cost the existing levees have, been used as 
far as possible, and only the expense of the actual work of enlarging 
these old levees to the size and standard of the new levees recom¬ 
mended has been included in the estimates. Of course it will be nec¬ 
essary to credit the owners of these old levees with whatever value 
they may have in the development and execution of the new plan of 
work; such credits will go to reduce the assessments which their own¬ 
ers would otherwise be expected to pay for the construction of the 
work. Hence, to arrive at a fair estimate of the average cost of the 
proposed work per acre of land benefited, it is necessary to make a 
new estimate of what the work would cost if the whole length of levees 


[Bull. 198] 

















































42 


Were to be entirely new construction. Under such a condition the 
total estimated cost would be $1,703,000, or $10.52 per acre. 

REVIEW AND CONCLUSIONS. 

The foregoing discussion of the several problems which have pre¬ 
sented themselves in the course of the critical examination of the 
Neosho River, made for the purpose of devising a plan for the protec¬ 
tion and reclamation of its bottom land, indicates that the project is 
one of more than usual magnitude and importance. The data 
secured and the various physical conditions observed during the field 
investigations have been given due weight in formulating the plan 
recommended. A review of the entire subject under consideration 
will now be useful in pointing out the relation of engineering, agricul¬ 
tural, industrial, and economic features of the proposition, all of which 
merit critical inspection before any plan of extensive improvement 
be adopted. 

It is seen that 161,800 acres of land will be directly affected by the 
plans proposed, which if carried out will cost in round numbers 
$1,703,000, or an average of $10.52 an acre if the entire cost is as¬ 
sessed against the land. The plan upon which this estimate is made 
consists of: 

(1) The removal of obstructions of all kinds from the bottom and 
banks of natural channels. 

(2) Substantial levees on each side of the channel of the river 900 
feet apart on the lower section, and return levees on each side of the 
channels of the larger tributaries. 

(3) The removal of all brush and trees from land hung between 
levees. 

(4) Interior drainage by means of ditches with outlets through the 
levees into the channels by means of sluice gates. 

(5) Cutting a few bends, where found practicable, in the upper sec¬ 
tion of the river. 

The data required for determining the height of levees and the 
width of waterway between them are unsatisfactory in many respects. 
The run-off of the Neosho River after the banks are full has not been 
determined with any degree of accuracy. The specifications for these 
two important factors of the flood channel have been made after 
ascertaining the amount discharged by other streams whose flood flow 
has been measured quite accurately, and whose watershed is similar 
to that of the Neosho Basin. The ratio of the run-off of the two 
basins has then been taken as proportional to the rainfall which pro¬ 
duces the floods of the respective districts. In dealing with problems 
dependent upon rainfall and climatic changes, a liberal margin should 
be allowed to meet conditions which can not be foreseen. The chan- 

[Bull. 198] 


43 


nel provided will discharge 9,000 cubic feet per second more than has 
been deduced by this method of computation. It should be ob¬ 
served in this connection that an improved channel will, in some 
degree, prevent the congestion of water and lengthen the time during 
which a given volume must be discharged by starting the flow sooner 
than would be the case were the channel unimproved. These well- 
recognized facts of any improvement of watercourses furnish an addi¬ 
tional factor of safety from the overtopping of the levees. 

The benefits accruing to land from adequate protection from over¬ 
flow are not limited to its use for agriculture. All property benefi¬ 
cially affected by the improvements is subject to special assessment 
for a portion of the cost, be it highways, railroads, or other property, 
provided a specific benefit is conferred. With reference to public 
highways, it should be observed that certain changes in construction 
will be required if the proposed levee system is built. The plans 
require that an unobstructed channel be maintained between the 
levees. The approaches to all highway bridges crossing the streams 
must be made of trestlework extending the entire distance between 
the bridge and the levees on either side, and should have as few bents 
as practicable. Railroad bridges and their approaches will be subject 
to the same requirement. With this exception, highways crossing 
the valley may be built and maintained with less expense than under 
the present arrangement, and will be greatly benefited by the recla¬ 
mation. 

The portion of the cost of the work chargeable to properties other 
than agricultural lands can not be estimated closely until an exami¬ 
nation with reference to this matter has been made in greater detail, 
but it may be safe to estimate this at 10 per cent of the entire cost 
of the improvements recommended. Since much the larger part of 
the cost of drainage will fall upon the land it benefits for agricultural 
use, the effect upon such property should be quite fully investigated. 
Lands subject to overflow are valued at about $15 an acre. Could 
tliese lands be guaranteed against occasional overflows, and the losses 
occasioned by them, it is stated that their market value would easily 
be $60 an acre, based upon their ability to produce a good yield of 
staple crops each year. This has been given as a conservative esti¬ 
mate by owners of the land in the valley, and if correct shows a pos¬ 
sible increase of $45 per acre in value which will result from drainage. 
In considering this question it will be only business prudence to also 
take into account the fact that land values fluctuate from various 
causes. There may be a drop in prices of agricultural products or 
the crops grown may, on account of climatic or other reasons, be 
light in yield or poor in quality. Financial depressions may prevail 
at times, causing a depreciation of all classes of property. All of 
these affect farm values of even the most productive land, as shown 

[Bull. 198] 


44 


by statistics covering the subject in this country and also in Europe. 
It is possible that land now worth $60 an acre may depreciate to $40 
within ten years. Yet restricting the margin of profit in this way, 
there seems to be little chance of loss in reclaiming the land should 
it cost even $20 an acre. The estimated damage to property in 1903 
and 1904 was greatly in excess of the estimated cost of the proposed 
system of protection and drainage. 

The plans proposed do not hold out the hope of cheap drainage, 
but of profitable drainage. It is quite possible that the cost to land- 
owners will be greater than the estimate, rather than less, since the 
history of reclamation projects of this character and magnitude sl\ows 
that various contingencies not provided for in the estimates will arise 
which may increase the final cost. 

The fact that the construction of the entire work by one manage¬ 
ment is recommended does not preclude the prosecution of the work 
as individual units by districts under special organizations if such a 
method should commend itself to the landowners. The carrying out 
of the first part of the plan recommended, namely, cleaning out all 
obstructions from the bottom and sides of the channel of the river, 
will abundantly pay the cost of the work by diminishing the fre 1 
quency and height of the floods. Should no more than this be done 
it would be a wise step toward the execution of the entire plan. The 
history of such improvements emphasizes the wisdom of starting the 
work correctly and persistently prosecuting it along right lines until 
it is completed in a thorough and permanent manner. 

[Bull. 198] 

o 


\ 




































































































































































. 
































































































































































S . 






















iJ-'BRARY OF CONGRESS 







